JIMMIE LEE PEARSON, 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.
Jimmie Lee Pearson appealed his conviction for manslaughter (reduced from a first-degree murder charge) on the ground that the prosecutor's improper closing remarks prevented a fair trial. The court affirmed, finding no prejudicial error because the jury's verdict of manslaughter contradicted the prosecutor's suggestion that only a first-degree murder conviction was just, and other objected remarks were not clearly references to defendant's failure to testify.
The court found no prejudicial error. The jury's verdict of manslaughter rather than first-degree murder demonstrated that the prosecutor's remarks had no effect, and the remaining objected-to comments were not clearly references to Pearson's failure to testify. The trial court's jury instructions on the relevant points were sufficient.
[1] A prosecutor's closing argument remarks are not grounds for a mistrial if the jury's verdict indicates the remarks did not have a prejudicial effect.
[2] A defendant's claim of self-defense is not substantial when the evidence clearly and convincingly proves guilt.
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“the only just verdict in this case is a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder against this defendant. Anything less and you are rubber-stamping every ghetto murder”
The prosecutor's closing argument remark that Pearson complained was improper and prejudicial; the court found it had no effect because the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter, not first-degree murder.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePearson was tried for first-degree murder in the killing of Harry Moody. The jury found him guilty of manslaughter instead and he was sentenced to thi…
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 Right Against Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Jimmie Lee Pearson, was tried upon a charge of first degree murder for the killing of Harry Moody. He was found guilty by a jury of the crime of manslaughter, was adjudicated in accordance with the verdict and sentenced to a term of thirteen years in the state prison. On this appeal, it is urged that he did not receive a fair trial because of the failure of the trial court to grant a mistrial due to claimed improper remarks of the prosecuting attorney in closing argument.
The appellant does not claim that the court committed error in failing to sustain his objections or in failing to give cautionary instructions to the jury but argues rather that the remarks were such that even after the instructions were given, the remarks so prejudiced the jury that he did not receive a fair trial.
The proof of appellant’s guilt, is clear and convincing. His only defense was a claim of self-defense. This defense was not substantial. It is clear from the record that one of the remarks complained of, that “. . . the only just verdict in this case is a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder against this defendant. Anything less and you are rubber-stamping every ghetto murder” had no effect upon the jury because the jury did bring back a verdict substantially less than first degree murder. The remaining comments objected to were claimed to have made oblique reference to defendant’s failure to take the stand. In each case, we find such a construction to be strained. In addition, the court fully and repeatedly instructed the jury on this point. We find no prejudicial error in view of the holdings in Collins v. State, Fla. 1965, 180 So. 2d 340 and Breniser v. State, Fla.App.1972, 267 So. 2d 23.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Collins v. State, 180 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1965)
- Breniser v. State, 267 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)