CHARLES RICHARD GLANTZ, 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.
Charles Richard Glantz was convicted of receiving stolen property, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial due to the prosecutor's highly prejudicial comments and improper questioning that deprived him of a fair trial.
The conviction and sentence are reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial because the prosecutor's improper conduct was so prejudicial as to deprive the appellant of the right to a fair trial, particularly given the reviewing court's reasonable doubt about whether the error contributed to conviction.
[1] A prosecutor's highly prejudicial comments and questioning of witnesses during a trial can warrant reversal of a conviction and sentence.
[2] A prosecutor's improper remarks and questions that serve no purpose other than to bring allegations of felony wrongdoing beyond the scope of the issues being tried to the…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 prosecutor's improper remarks and questions could serve no other purpose than to bring to the jury's attention allegations of felony wrongdoing which were beyond the scope of the issues being tried.”
Establishes that the prosecutor's conduct was fundamentally improper and designed to prejudice the jury with extraneous allegations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGlantz, a jeweler working from his home, was charged with buying, receiving or aiding in concealment of stolen property. James McGuire, a State witnes…
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 Suppressed Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Charles Richard Glantz, was convicted by jury of buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property, knowing the same to be stolen, and was thereafter sentenced by the trial court.
We reverse the conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial because of the prosecutor’s highly prejudicial comments and questioning of witnesses during the trial.
Appellant, a jeweler, at one time had a retail store, but at the time of the alleged incident, he was working as a jeweler from his home. James McGuire, a witness for the State, admitted having stolen the jewelry and taken it to appellant’s home. Acting pursuant to a search warrant, stolen jewelry was recovered from appellant’s home; in addition, jewelry was taken from appellant’s car. Evidence relating to the jewelry taken from the car was suppressed following hearing on motion therefor. McGuire testified at trial that he did not tell, nor did Glantz ask, whether the jewelry was stolen. Glantz denied knowing that the jewelry was stolen.-
Despite the trial judge’s many admonitions and rebukes to the prosecutor relating to improper questioning and remarks by him, the prosecutor elicited testimony from the appellant relative to the suppressed evidence. Moreover, the prosecutor through his questions repeatedly referred to appellant as a “fence,” suggesting that appellant’s home was just a front for fencing stolen property. The prosecutor also asked two witnesses who were present at the time of the search of appellant’s home whether there had been any conversations regarding cocaine dealings between McGuire and David Olds, one of the defense witnesses. These questions were not relevant to the case.
The prosecutor’s improper remarks and questions could serve no other purpose than to bring to the jury’s attention allegations of felony wrongdoing which were beyond the scope of the issues being tried. These allegations were highly prejudicial to the appellant. While the State urges harmless error, we are of the opinion that the conduct complained of was so prejudicial as to deprive appellant of the right to a fair trial, especially where there is a reasonable doubt in this reviewing court’s mind as to whether this error contributed to appellant’s conviction. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McMILLIAN v. State, 409 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…otion for mistrial, an appellate court is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the conviction, reversal is appropriate. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Glantz v. State, 343 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Our review of the record discloses no support for the state’s comment that McMillian’s release would foster this type of crime in Dade County. Furthermore, the evidence against defendant McMillian is far from overwhelming. Ms. D…
-
Sharp v. Lewis, 367 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ise to reversible error. See Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Ford, 92 So. 2d 160, 165 (Fla.1956); Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Strickland, 88 So. 2d 519, 523 (Fla.1956); Noeling v. State, 40 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1949); and Glantz v. State, 343 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). However, a review of the record in the present case does not bring the questioned comments within any of these categories. We, therefore, hold that the appellants have not shown the absence of a fair trial under the doctrine sta…
-
Shorter v. State, 532 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…Tuff v. State, 509 So. 2d 953, 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Singletary v. State, 483 So. 2d 8, 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Coleman v. State, 420 So. 2d 354, 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); McMillian v. State, 409 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Glantz v. State, 343 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Reversed and remanded for a new trial.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967)