JAMES BROWN, APPELLANT,
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.
Florida appellate court reversed a breaking and entering and attempted grand larceny conviction because the prosecutor's inflammatory remarks calling the defendant a "desperate crook" and "little thief" prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Prosecutor's inflammatory characterizations of the defendant as a "desperate crook" and "little thief" during closing argument, when the defendant had admitted prior convictions, violated the defendant's right to a fair trial and required reversal.
[1] Prosecutor's use of inflammatory characterizations such as 'desperate crook' and 'little thief' during closing argument, particularly when defendant has admitted prior co…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“This is a guy who is desperate. He is a desperate crook, a three time loser. * * * this little thief doesn't deserve your sympathy.”
Prosecutor's closing argument remarks that the trial court overruled defendant's objection to, particularly the phrase 'this little thief'
The defendant was convicted of breaking and entering a building and attempting to commit grand larceny. During trial, the defendant admitted three pri…
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
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal from his conviction of breaking and entering a building and of attempt to commit grand larceny, the appellant seeks a new trial because of certain remarks by the prosecutor in argument, to which objection by defendant was overruled.
In testifying, the defendant had admitted three prior convictions. The alleged remarks of the prosecutor included the following: “This is a guy who is desperate. He is a desperate crook, a three time loser. * * * There is absolutely no way that you can review all of this testimony in your mind fairly and objectively, because you all said you would disregard sympathy and pity. There is a reasons for that. The first reason is that when you start thinking about sympathy or pity, it clouds your mind to the evidence. The second reason for it is that this little thief does’nt deserve yovir sympathy.” (Italics ours.)
“Mr. Long: Objection to that phraseology, Your Honor, ‘this little thief.’
“The Court: Overruled.”
We hold that because of the prosecutor’s comments to the jury, the plaintiff’s right and opportunity to a fair trial was prejudiced, so as to require reversal, on authority of Davis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 41; Fitzgerald v. State, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 45; Sherman v. State, Fla.1971, 255 So. 2d 263.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elvis Harris v. State, 414 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…. 2d 612 (Fla.1967); Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 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).…
-
Carter v. State, 332 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…pist which reference may well have been interpreted by the jury as referring not to the charge on which he was being tried, but, rather, to ascribe guilt to the defendant for his alleged prior actions with Mrs. Hill. Brown v. State, Fla.App.3d 1973, 284 So. 2d 453. We have considered the remaining points raised by the defendant on this appeal and find each of them to be without merit. Having determined that error did occur in this case, we now turn to a determination of whether that error prejudiced the sub…
-
Groebner v. State, 342 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ck conartist who has operated in South Florida.” A motion for mistrial was made and denied. A prosecutor may not in opening statement attack the defendant’s character. See Post v. State, 315 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); and cf. Brown v. State, 284 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The prosecuting witness was allowed to elicit evidence of the defendant’s moral character and of a specific act of misconduct which allegedly took place after the events which gave rise to the instant charge. She was allowed to…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fitzgerald v. State, 227 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Griffith v. State, 214 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Sherman v. State, 255 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1971)