GLEN RUSSELL, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Glen Russell appealed his conviction for assault with intent to commit first-degree murder and breaking and entering a vehicle with intent to commit a crime. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the prosecutor made highly prejudicial and inflammatory statements during closing argument that were not supported by the record and not properly addressed by the trial judge.
The court held that the prosecutor's inflammatory and abusive statements were highly prejudicial and constituted reversible error that was not subject to harmless error analysis, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
[1] A prosecutor's argument to the jury that the defendant poses a future danger to society, if not convicted, is improper and prejudicial when not supported by evidence in t…
[2] A prosecutor's argument that failure to convict the defendant will lead to societal breakdown and increased crime is improper and prejudicial.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“People are getting killed and I submit to you if we let this individual go in so society, possibly something will happen will effect, that an innocent party, another innocent party could possibly get killed by this individual.”
Example of prosecutor's inflammatory closing argument that was not supported by the record
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRussell was convicted of assault with intent to commit first-degree murder and breaking and entering a vehicle with intent to commit a crime related t…
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 Inflammatory Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant appeals conviction and judgment entered thereon of assault with intent to commit first degree murder and breaking and entering a vehicle with intent to commit a crime. We reverse.
Defendant’s principal assertion of error surrounds statements made by the prosecutor to the jury during argument, inclusive of which is the following:
“People are getting killed and I submit to you if we let this individual go in so*155ciety, possibly something will happen will effect [sic], that an innocent party, another innocent party could possibly get killed by this individual.
“MR. MURRELL: I object to that, Your Honor.
“MR. WILHELM: You brought it out.
“THE COURT: Have a seat, Mr. Mur-rell. Wind it up, Mr. Wilhelm.
“MR. WILHELM: Yes, sir.
t< * * *
“He was the one that performed the act that night of September 23rd, 1967, and he should be made to pay for that crime because if we don’t have that, we are going to have a breakdown in society and we are going to have people getting stabbed all over Orange County.
“MR. MURRELL: I object to that, Your Honor.
“THE COURT: The objection will be noted in the record.”
With commendable candor, the State admits in its brief:
“The Transcript of Trial Testimony shows that the trial judge neither sustained the Appellant’s objections, nor gave the jury any cautionary instruction with regard to the above-cited remarks. We do not find that such statements were supported by anything in the record, nor do we find that they constituted a justifiable reply to any comment of defense counsel in his closing argument to the jury.
“Therefore, we are inclined to think that these above comments of the prosecutor fall within the condemnation of the decisions in the following cases: Grant v. State, 194 So.2d 612 (Fla.1967); Stewart v. State, 51 So.2d 494 (Fla. 1951); Chavez v. State, 215 So.2d 750 (Fla.App.2d 1968); and Davis v. State, 214 So.2d 41 (Fla.App.3d 1968).
“It further appears that the nature of these statements made by the prosecutor, when considered in light of the above-cited decisions, would render a ‘harmless error’ contention entirely inappropriate in this cause.”
We agree. Inflammatory and abusive statements are not to be indulged in. These were highly prejudicial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
McCAIN, REED, and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Williams v. State, 425 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…eries of Florida cases. Gomez v. State, 415 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); McMillian v. State, 409 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Porter v. State, 347 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Davis v. State, 214 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). While we therefore thoroughly disapprove of the argument, we cannot hold that it justifies reversal. The evidence against Wil…
-
Valdez v. State, 613 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…e v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Appellant correctly maintains that the prosecutor’s first comment that the police stand between “us and anarchy” improperly focused the jury’s attention on matters outside the record. See Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Appellant also argues that by stating that he was “hoping to cut his losses” by acknowledging guilt on the cocaine charges, the prosecutor improperly commented on possible criminal penalties. See Williams v. State, 593 So. 2d 11…
-
Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…further to the error. See, e. g., Grant v. State, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1967); Porter v. State, 347 So. 2d 449 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Malery v. State, 303 So. 2d 369 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Thompson v. State, 235 So. 2d 354 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 154 (Fla.4th DCA 1970); and Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). Based upon the reasons and the authorities set forth above, it was reversible error for the trial court to deny appellant’s motion for a mistrial. Accordingly, the judgment o…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stewart v. State, 51 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1951)
- LEE A. Tharpe Constr. Co. v. Chivers, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1967)
- Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Griffith v. State, 214 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)