RICHARD A. COCHRAN, 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.
Appellant Cochran was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon and appealed, claiming the trial court erred in denying his objection to the Assistant State Attorney's improper comments about defense tactics. Despite finding the prosecution's conduct highly improper and unethical, the appellate court affirmed the conviction under the harmless error doctrine because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
The trial court erred in allowing the improper prosecutorial comments, but the error was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and therefore the conviction was affirmed.
[1] A prosecutor's comments regarding the time, manner, and reason a defendant testifies on their own behalf are improper and unethical.
[2] A prosecuting attorney has a duty to refrain from making improper remarks or committing acts that could affect the fairness and impartiality to which an accused is entitl…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the argument by Richard O. Watson, Assistant State Attorney, as to defense technique and '... how defense lawyers operate ....' is not only highly improper but it is unethical.”
The court's direct condemnation of the prosecutor's misconduct in commenting on defense tactics and strategy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with and convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon. During trial, the Assistant State Attorney made comments regarding the…
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 Felon In Possession Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
The only point on appeal posed by appellant that merits our consideration is:
“The Court erred in denying defendant’s [appellant’s] objection to' the comments of the Assistant State Attorney in regard to the time, manner and reason the defendant [appellant] testified on his own behalf.”
A review of this record discloses an overwhelming case of appellant’s guilt, and solely for this reason we agree with the State’s contention that the harmless error doctrine is applicable.
By caveat, we note that the argument by Richard O. Watson, Assistant State *43Attorney, as to defense technique and “ . . . how defense lawyers operate . . . . ” is not only highly improper but it is unethical. Extensive time and effort is expended by law enforcement officers, jurors, witnesses, court attachés, attorneys and judges in bringing to the bar of justice those accused of transgressing the laws of this State. It is the duty of a prosecuting attorney in a trial to refrain from making improper remarks or committing acts which would or might tend to affect the fairness and impartiality to which the accused is entitled. His duty is not to obtain convictions but to seek justice, and he must exercise that responsibility with the circumspection and dignity the occasion calls for. Cases brought on behalf of the State of Florida should be conducted with a dignity worthy of the client.1 In violating this duty, the prosecuting attorney jeopardizes all the effort and work expended by those above mentioned.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)…(April 1978): Can P. D. [punitive damages] go undiagnosed and what are the consequences? Yes, some lawyers are overlooking the possibility of P. D. and could be subjected to a malpractice claim as a result of such oversight. .See Cochran v. State, 280 So. 2d 42, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) (prosecutor’s argument about “how defense lawyers operate”); Simpson v. State, 352 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (prosecutor’s reference to “one of the favorite tricks of a defense lawyer”); Carter v. State, 356 So. 2d…
-
Darden v. State, 329 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1976)…must exercise that responsibility with the circumspection and dignity the occasion calls for. Cases brought on behalf of the State of Florida should be conducted with a dignity worthy of the client. . . .” Knight v. State, supra; Cochran v. State, 280 So. 2d 42 (Fla.App. 1st 1973); and Kirk v. State, 227 So. 2d 40 (Fla. App. 4th 1969). Yet the majority opinion suggests that this welter of highly prejudicial comment was fair, or if not exactly fair, then at least not so improper as to constitute reversible…
-
Hufham v. State, 400 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ink the comment was improper, because reserving opening statement is a recognized privilege of defense counsel. Thus this comment may be compared to the remark as to defense technique and “how defense lawyers operate” criticized in Cochran v. State, 280 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). It is the duty of a prosecuting attorney in a trial to refrain from making improper remarks or committing acts which would or might tend to affect the fairness and impartiality to which the accused is entitled. Id. at 43.7 How…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kirk v. State, 227 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)