SIMMS
v.
STATE
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.
Simms appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, challenging the prosecutor's closing argument. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the appellant's appellate record insufficient to establish that the prosecutor's remarks were prejudicial.
The court held that the appellant failed to carry his burden of proving error because the record did not contain enough of the prosecutor's full address to determine whether the remarks were prejudicial and erroneous. The quoted remarks alone are not per se prejudicial, and any claim of prosecutorial impropriety requires a sufficiently complete record.
“The burden of proving error being upon the appellant, his failure to include in the record enough of the State Attorney's address for a determination of whether such remarks were prejudicial and erroneous, is fatal to appellant's contention.”
Establishes the standard that appellants must provide a complete record to challenge prosecutorial remarks and that failure to do so is fatal to the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimms was convicted in the lower court of unlawful possession of cannabis sativa (marijuana). During the prosecutor's closing argument, the assistant …
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.
DREW, Justice:
The appellant was convicted in the lower court of the crime of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug known as cannibis sativa (m.arihuana). Appellant' assigns four grounds for reversal.
Before the bar of this . Court, appellant abandoned his ground of .appeal Number One. We have carefully examined grounds of appeal numbered Two and Three and find no merit in’either. Ground of appeal Number Four is as follows: “The Court erred in permitting the State Attorney to argue to the jury a highly inflammable subject not supported by the evidence nor any inference which could reasonably be deduced from the evidence.”
The only disclosure in the transcript of the record on this subject is the following:
“During the argument of the State, By' Hon. J. Frank Adams, Assistant State Attorney (in talking about mari-huána) made the following statement ‘that is the reason so many high, school, students over, the country .are using narcotics.’
“By Mr. Cogdill: I object to that line of argument, it is prejudicial to the defendant, in bringing in the high school students' and newspaper ‘ clippings; into the case.
“By. the Court: You .went out ,of. the record talking about the Army and Miami Beach and-the .hotel -business; the objection will be overruled.”
The burden of proving error being upon the appellant, his failure to include in the record enough of the State Attorney’s address for a determination of whether such remarks were prejudicial and erroneous, is fatal to appellant’s contention. Mendez v. State, Fla., 39 So. 2d 468. The quoted remarks are not, per se, prejudicial, as were those which were the basis of the reversal in Gluck v. State, Fla., 62 So. 2d 71.
This opinion is not intended to change the rule about abusive and unwarranted prejudicial remarks by prosecuting officers before a jury, but when a reversal is sought on such ground, the record should be sufficiently full and complete to give this Court information upon which to make a proper decision. See Huggins v. State, 129 Fla. 329, 176 So. 154.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Singleton v. State, 183 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…s supplied). See, to the same effect generally, Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106, 50 So. 507; Kelly v. State, 39 Fla. 122, 22 So. 303; McGowan v. State, 89 Fla. 5, 102 So. 890; and Russ v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 594. Cf. Simms v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 561. The sum total of the foregoing cases is that the vital question of whether allegedly improper comments to a jury may be considered when raised only in a Motion for New Trial, even though the motion is supported by affidavits or sworn testimony, is…
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 213 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…not have been rebuttal of something said by the railroad’s counsel in closing argument. Ordinarily, in measuring the propriety of a closing argument, it is necessary to have the entire argument of both sides for its review. Simms v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 561; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 207. This is not to say that a court could not find error with only a portion of the closing argument brought to its attention, but it would appear to be an unusual circumstance. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the…
-
Hiram Cazes Parnell v. State, 218 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…er, as these comments were not prejudicial per se and as the closing argument of the defense was not reported, it is impossible to determine whether or not the prosecution’s comments were rebuttal to the defense’s argument. Simms v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 561; Boyd v. State, Fla. App.1964, 162 So. 2d 271; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 207; Compare Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Morgan, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 632. The factors to be con [*539] sidered in this type of evidence have been set forth in Norri…
Authorities Cited
- Gluck v. State, 62 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1952)
- State of Fla. & the Taxpayers v. City OF Fort Pierce, 155 Fla. 58 (Fla. 1944)
- Huggins v. State, 129 Fla. 329 (Fla. 1937)