JOHNNIE B. WASHINGTON, APPETLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, holding that the prosecutor's closing argument comment on the evidence was permissible and not an improper comment on the defendant's failure to testify.
No, the prosecutor's statement was a legitimate comment on the evidence as presented to the jury, not an improper comment on the appellant's silence.
“When taken in the context of the record as a whole, the assailed statement constitutes nothing more than a comment on the evidence as it existed before the jury.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reasoning for finding the prosecutor's statement permissible.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor based on a jury verdict. During closing arguments, the Assist…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Comment On Failure To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. His sole contention of error is that the Assistant State Attorney, in his closing argument to the jury, improperly commented on appellant’s failure to testify, thus violating Florida Statutes, Section 918.09 (1965), F.S.A.
When taken in the context of the record as a whole, the assailed statement constitutes nothing more than a comment on the evidence as it existed before the jury. As such, it was legitimate. See State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So.2d 515, 516-18; Clinton v. State, 1908, 56 Fla. 57, 61-62, 47 So. 389, 390; Gray v. State, 1900, 42 Fla. 174, 176-177, 28 So. 53-54; Woodside v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 426, 428-429; cf. Gordon v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 524, 539-541; Trafficante v. State, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 811, 812-814; Way v. State, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 321, 322. The appealed judgment is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and HOBSON,. JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mathis v. State, 267 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…hat such comments were addressed to the evidence as it existed before the jury and were made in direct response to defense counsel’s contention that the defendant’s confession was involuntary and inconclusive. See Washington v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 210 So. 2d 290. The prosecutor’s statements were clearly designed to refute defense counsel’s comments concerning defendant’s confession; and it would require a strained construction of the facts to assume that a jury would infer that the prosecutor was calling th…
-
Clark v. State, 275 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…y are without merit and that no reversible error has been made to appear. Kelly v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 901; Reis v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 666; Woodside v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 426; Washington v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 210 So. 2d 290. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jones, 204 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1967)
- Russ v. State, 92 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1957)
- Gordon v. State, 104 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1958)
- WAY v. State, 67 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1953)
- Gray v. State, 42 Fla. 174 (Fla. 1900)
- Buck Clinton and Edward Clinton v. State, 56 Fla. 57 (Fla. 1908)
- Woodside v. State, 206 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)