TITUS R. WALTERS, 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.
Titus Walters was convicted of third-degree murder and sentenced to 15 years. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court violated Walters' procedural right to closing argument by allowing the state to argue last, even though the defense introduced no evidence other than cross-examination.
Yes. A defendant who introduces no evidence in his own behalf, other than his own testimony, has a vested procedural right to closing argument before the jury under Florida CrPR 3.250. The trial court erred in granting the state the right to closing argument because the defense did not actually introduce evidence—merely marking a shirt for identification during cross-examination does not constitute offering evidence.
[1] A defendant who introduces no evidence in his own behalf, other than his own testimony, has a vested procedural right to the closing argument before the jury.
[2] Evidence must be offered and admitted, not merely marked for identification, to trigger procedural rules regarding closing arguments.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a defendant offering no testimony in his own behalf, except his own, shall be entitled to the concluding argument before the jury”
Statement of the procedural rule in Florida CrPR 3.250 that protects a defendant's right to final closing argument
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalters was convicted of third-degree murder by jury verdict and sentenced to 15 years in prison. During cross-examination of the Monroe County Sherif…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of a judgment and sentence of fifteen years in prison, which followed a jury verdict finding the appellant guilty of third degree murder. Appellant presents three points on appeal, however, our determination of this case makes it necessary to consider only appellant’s second point. His contention is well taken and requires reversal.
At the conclusion of the evidence placed before the jury, the court granted the state the right to opening and closing argument to the jury over the objection of appellant’s counsel. Upon cross-examination of Mr. Norman Lee, the director of the police crime laboratory for the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department, defense counsel inquired concerning tests run on a shirt. Counsel with the consent of the state attorney also had the shirt marked for identification.
Florida CrPR 3.250, 33 F.S.A., provides in part "... a defendant offering no testimony in his own behalf, except his own, shall be entitled to the concluding argument before the jury.” The rule supersedes former Fla.Stat. § 918.09, F.S.A. This language has been stated definitively to mean that a defendant who introduces no evidence in his own behalf, other than his own testimony, has a vested procedural right to the closing argument before the jury. Birge v. State, Fla.1957, 92 So. 2d 819; Cagnina v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 577; Wyatt v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 47; Raysor v. State, Fla.App.1973, 272 So. 2d 867.
The state argues that the record demonstrates that defense counsel clearly considered the shirt had been introduced into evidence and not solely marked for identifica tion. This court recently has stated that it should appear that evidence actually has been offered and admitted and not simply marked for identification. Alexander v. State, Fla.App., 288 So. 2d 538, opinion filed January 8, 1974. Moreover, it is not proper for defense counsel to introduce evidence upon cross-examining one of the state’s witnesses. Birge v. State, supra.
Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the judgment and sentence appealed are reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Titus R. Walters, 294 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1974)…Certiorari denied. 288 So. 2d 298. ADKINS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Birge v. State, 92 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1957)
- Raysor v. State, 272 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Alexander v. State, 288 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Polacek v. Rests., Inc., 175 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Stroup v. State, 270 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)