LES REED, 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.
Les Reed was convicted of marijuana sales based on a single transaction with an undercover officer. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, finding that the prosecutor's inflammatory closing argument—which appealed to jurors' emotions about the drug epidemic and their civic duty to convict—was so prejudicial that it deprived Reed of his right to a fair trial despite the trial judge's attempt to correct it.
The prosecutor's closing argument was so prejudicial that it deprived Reed of his fundamental right to a fair trial. Although the trial judge sustained timely objections to the argument, his corrective efforts were insufficient to remedy the prejudicial effect of the inflammatory statements.
[1] A prosecutor's argument to the jury that improperly inflames passion or prejudice, even if objected to and attempted to be corrected by the trial court, can deprive a def…
[2] A prosecutor's argument that discusses the general societal problem of drug trafficking and abuse, without connecting it to the specific evidence in the case, is improper…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 ultimate and the final responsibility, the whole system comes down to one focal point, one responsibility: Citizens of each community that sit on the juries of these cases. You have the ultimate power over controlling drug abuse”
Demonstrates prosecutor's improper appeal to jurors' emotions and civic duty rather than focusing on evidence in the specific case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReed was charged with and convicted of selling marijuana. The trial evidence showed only a single transaction between Reed and a police officer. No ev…
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
RAWLS, Judge.
Once again the extensive time and money expended in a criminal proceeding must go “down the drain” because of the over zealous argument of one prosecutor.1
Appellant was charged and found guilty of the sale of marijuana. Trial evidence disclosed a single transaction between appellant and a police officer. No evidence of any character was adduced as to appellant having been previously engaged in the sale of drugs to any other persons. However, the prosecuting attorney argued to the jury as follows:
“You have got a tough decision to make in this case. It’s not an easy one. The last ten years drug trafficking and drug abuse in this country has skyrocketed. It’s a spreading disease. Drug abuse has spread down from colleges to high schools down to grade schools. You read in papers now about children in grade schools, grammar schools using drugs, and where do those drugs come from? From people who are willing to make money off of them.
“Now, we’ve got a police force that is trying to make arrests on dope peddlers. We’ve got Courts that are willing to try dope peddlers. We’ve got prosecutors that are willing to prosecute dope peddlers to try to clean up this country. But the ultimate and the final responsibility, the whole system comes down to one focal point, one responsibility: Citizens of each community that sit on the juries of these cases. You have the ultimate power over controlling drug abuse: Sitting on drug cases and listening to the testimony, deciding whether the State has proved its case. The welfare of the citizens of Florida and the people of Duval County, I’m contending, ask that you return a verdict of guilty in this case after considering the evidence. The decision is yours, though, and I ask you to consider it very carefully. Thank you.”
In addition, the prosecuting attorney, in commenting as to defense counsel’s role, argued:
“Mr. Jacobson is the Defense Counsel in this case. His responsibility as the Defense Counsel is to defend someone charged with a crime. That’s his duty. His responsibility in this case is to provide the best defense possible for his client, and he’s doing just that: The best defense possible.
“Mr. Jacobson doesn’t share any guilt that his client may have; he’s merely doing his job in this case. . . . ”
The prosecuting attorney also injected his personal belief into his argument by stating:
“ . . . All that the State asks for in this case is fairness. The State doesn’t prosecute someone because of their religion or their race or their nationality. We prosecute them because we believe they are guilty of crimes.”
Timely objection to the foregoing argument was sustained by the trial judge who valiantly tried to correct the inflammatory and prejudicial argument by the state; however, we find that the remarks were so prejudicial that the trial judge’s efforts were in vain. Appellant was deprived his fundamental right to a fair trial.2
REVERSED.
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur. . Grant v. State, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1967).
. Stewart v. State, 51 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1951); Pait v. State, 112 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1959); Grant v. State, supra; and Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1968).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Jackson v. State, 421 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ors were asked whether they would buy a used car from him — were, as is now acknowledged by the state, utterly and grossly improper.1 Adams v. State, [*16] 192 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1966); Carter v. State, 356 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Reed v. State, 333 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); see Peterson v. State, 376 So. 2d 1230, 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). While the prejudicial effect of these remarks might have been dissipated if, as required, the trial judge had emphatically rebuked the state attorney and affirmat…
-
State v. Wheeler, 468 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1985)
-
Buckhann v. State, 356 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…rd Sheriff’s Office. The State of Florida believes him and that is why we are here and I ask you to believe him, because it is a one on one situation. (Emphasis supplied.) Such argument was improper and should not have been allowed. Reed v. State, 333 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Thompson v. State, 318 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Price v. State, 267 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Finally we hold that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the prosecutor, over defendant’s objection, t…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Florida Appellate Rules, 112 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1959)
- Stewart v. State, 51 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1951)
- LEE A. Tharpe Constr. Co. v. Chivers, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1967)
- Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)