JEFF LEE PORTER, 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.
Jeff Lee Porter was convicted by jury of drug trafficking charges (sale and possession of heroin) and sentenced to concurrent terms of six and five years. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, finding that improper prosecutorial comments during closing argument so prejudiced the trial that a fair verdict was impossible, despite the trial court sustaining objections.
The court held that the State's improper remarks went beyond the scope of the issues being tried and were so highly prejudicial as to deprive the appellant of his right to a fair trial. The sustaining of objections and any curative instructions could not have lessened the impact of those remarks.
[1] Prosecutorial comments during closing arguments that are highly improper and prejudicial can deprive a defendant of a fair trial.
[2] A trial court's sustaining of an objection to improper prosecutorial argument, without curative instructions, may not be sufficient to cure the prejudice to the defendant…
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“We believe that the State's admittedly improper remarks went beyond the scope of the issues being tried and were so highly prejudicial as to deprive appellant of his right to a fair trial.”
Establishes the court's holding that prosecutorial misconduct was severe enough to require reversal despite sustaining objections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePorter was charged with sale or delivery of a controlled substance and possession of the same controlled substance (heroin) in violation of Florida la…
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 Sale Of Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Chief Judge. Appellant, defendant below, was charged by a two count information with (1) the sale or delivery of a controlled substance and (2) the possession of a controlled substance, both in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1975). A jury found appellant guilty on both counts and he was sentenced to a term of six years imprisonment as to count one and five years imprisonment as to count two, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in count one. Appellant appeals his final judgment of conviction and sentence on two grounds. Appellant contents initially that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial when, during closing argument, the prosecution offered “highly improper and prejudicial” comments which violated appellant’s right to a fair trial.
Secondly, appellant contends that, pursuant to our decision in Orange v. State, 334 So. 2d 277 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), the trial court erred in sentencing him to separate sentences for the offenses of sale and possession of the same controlled substance (heroin), where each of the two offenses was a facet of the same transaction. In that we reverse appellant’s conviction on the basis of his first contention, we need not examine the latter. During closing argument by the State, the following dialogue took place: “Mr. Ginsberg: ... I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, what if you wanted to turn this pusher on the streets again? “Mr. Person: Objection, your Honor. “The Court: The objection is sustained. “Mr. Ginsberg: If you want to let this man— “Mr. Person: Your Honor, excuse me. For the record, I move for mistrial, also. “The Court: Motion for mistrial is denied. “Mr. Ginsberg: If you want to put this man on the street to sell more heroin to people— “Mr. Person: Your Honor, I objected to that and he continued. “The Court: The objection is sustained.” We believe that the State’s admittedly improper remarks went beyond the scope of the issues being tried and were so highly prejudicial as to deprive appellant of his right to a fair trial. Neither the court’s sustaining of appellant’s objections, nor the use of curative instructions by the bench, which were not sought by appellant nor given by the court, could have lessened the impact of those remarks. Glantz v. State, 343 So. 2d 88 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Reed v. State, 333 So. 2d 524 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla.2d DCA 1968).
Accordingly, appellant’s conviction is hereby reversed and remanded for new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elvis Harris v. State, 414 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…rally reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial on all counts. . See, e.g., Grant v. State, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1967); Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596, 600 (1940); Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Porter v. State, 347 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Thompson v. State, 318 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Brown v. State, 284 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Price v. State, 267 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Davis v. State, 214…
-
Williams v. State, 425 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…,”1 have been condemned in a long and uninterrupted series of Florida cases. Gomez v. State, 415 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); McMillian v. State, 409 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Porter v. State, 347 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Davis v. State, 214 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). While we therefore thoroughly disapprove of the argument, we cannot hold…
-
Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…d appellant’s objection to the statement. Immediately after this ruling, appellee repeated the comment: “Go get another one.” This additional comment added further to the error. See, e. g., Grant v. State, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1967); Porter v. State, 347 So. 2d 449 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Malery v. State, 303 So. 2d 369 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Thompson v. State, 235 So. 2d 354 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 154 (Fla.4th DCA 1970); and Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). Based upon the rea…
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
- Chavez v. State, 215 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Les Reed v. State, 333 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Orange v. State, 334 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Glantz v. State, 343 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)