JOHNNY LEE PRICE, 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.
Remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument were so prejudicial as to deny the appellant a fair trial.
During closing arguments, the prosecutor stated that the State would not prosecute an innocent man. The defense objected, arguing this was an improper…
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 Improper Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant’s robbery conviction and life sentence must be reversed because certain remarks made by the prosecutor in his closing argument to the jury1 were of such a character as to deprive appellant of his fundamental right to a fair trial. See Sherman v. State, Fla.1971, 255 So.2d 263; Grant v. State, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 612; Chavez v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 750; Davis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 41.
On the authority of the foregoing, as well as the numerous cases cited therein, the judgment and sentence are severally reversed and this cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed.
REED, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 421 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…State, 119 Fla. 839, 161 So. 729, 731 (1935), in fact, he either merely told counsel to “comment on the evidence,” but see Harper v. State, 411 So. 2d 235, 236-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Peterson v. State, supra, 376 So. 2d at 1233 n. 2; Price v. State, 267 So. 2d 39, 40 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), or, in the case of the “used car salesman” remark which was the worst of all, actually overruled the objection.2 In these circumstances, we must conclude that the defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial may be uph…
-
Silvestri v. State, 332 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…. . . that the law enforcement officials responsible for the pretrial proceedings all believed the appellant to be guilty. This implication is prejudicial. Cf. Blanco v. State, 150 Fla. 98, 7 So. 2d 333.” This Court likewise held in Price v. State, 267 So. 2d 39 (Fla.App.4th 1972) that remarks similar to those made below were prejudicially erroneous. Particularly, in this case, in which the only real issue was whether Bock and Avera or the defendant was telling the truth, the argument in question was plainl…
-
Elvis Harris v. State, 414 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…196 So. 596, 600 (1940); Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Porter v. State, 347 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Thompson v. State, 318 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Brown v. State, 284 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Price v. State, 267 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Davis v. State, 214 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). . §§ 59.041 and 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1981).…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)
- Sherman v. State, 255 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1971)