TRULUCK HERBERT JOHNSON, 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.
Truluck Herbert Johnson appealed his conviction for robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm, challenging both the prosecutor's inflammatory closing argument and the sufficiency of identification evidence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding the prosecutor's remark harmless error and the identification evidence sufficient.
The court held that Johnson waived his objection to the prosecutor's remark by failing to expressly adopt the co-defendant's objection. Even if timely objected to, the remark was harmless error and did not require reversal. The court also held that the identification evidence was sufficient, as two eyewitnesses who knew Johnson positively identified him based on voice, appearance, and manner of walking.
[1] A defendant waives an objection to a prosecutor's remark if their counsel fails to expressly adopt an objection made by co-defendant's counsel.
[2] Prosecutors are allowed considerable latitude in closing arguments, and impassioned eloquence does not presume jurors will be led to wrongful verdicts.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“It is not presumed that the jurors are led astray to wrongful verdicts by impassioned eloquence.”
Establishes the legal standard that prosecutors have latitude in closing argument and remarks are not presumed to mislead jurors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was tried jointly with a co-defendant for robbery. Two witnesses—Ms. Greene, a barmaid, and Mr. Chester, a patron—identified Johnson as one of…
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 Curative Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
HAVERFIELD, Judge.
Truluck Herbert Johnson appeals his conviction for robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and, for one of his two points contends that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the prosecutor’s following inflammatory remark in his closing argument to the jury:
“It’s not fair to the rest of the people of this community to let those two robbers walk out of this door and take that escalator down to the first floor and take a bus down to 22nd Street. It’s just not fair. “They didn’t think about the people in your community back in September. “MR. WILSON: I’ll object to this. I would ask your Honor to instruct the jury that this be completely disregarded, the whole thing, the use of the word, ‘robbers’—
“MR. WAKSMAN: They’re charged with robbery.
“THE COURT: The jury will disregard the last statement of the prosecutor.”
First, we note that defendant was tried jointly with a co-defendant and counsel for co-defendant objected to the above remark and requested a curative instruction. Counsel for defendant having acted independently of counsel for co-defendant during the proceedings and having failed to expressly adopt the above objection, has thereby waived his objection thereto. See Wright v. State, 318 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Assuming arguendo that defendant’s counsel had made a timely objection, we do not believe defendant has made reversible error to appear. It is not presumed that the jurors are led astray to wrongful verdicts by impassioned eloquence. Paramore v. State, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla.1969). A considerable degree of latitude is allowed prosecutors in closing argument to the jury. Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413, 415 (Fla.1975).
Considering this case on its own merits and within the circumstances existing at the time the questionable statement was made, we find that the subject remark was neither so harmful nor fundamentally tainted as to require a new trial, and the trial judge properly instructed the jury to disregard the remark. See Thomas, supra, and Frierson v. State, 339 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Cf. Wingate v. State, 232 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
Last, the record reflects that counsel for co-defendant upon objection asked for a curative instruction and not a new trial and, therefore, upon receiving and accepting the curative instruction, the error, if any, was waived. See Foster v. State, 266 So. 2d 97, 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
For his other point on appeal defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish identification of him as one of the perpetrators of the robbery.
A review of the record establishes that defendant was positively identified by Ms. Greene, one of the barmaids, and Mr. Chester, a patron in the bar at the time of the robbery. They based their identifications on his voice, physical appearance and manner of walking. Both, having previously been acquainted with the defendant, gave his first name to the police who arrived on the scene just after the robbery and positively identified him as one of the robbers during a photographic line-up. Positive identification having been made by two people who had an opportunity to observe the crime, we find there was ample evidence to support the jury’s finding that defendant was one of the perpetrators of the robbery and it was within the jury’s province to reject the alibi testimony presented in view of Ms. Greene’s and Mr. Chester’s testimony. See Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16, 129 So. 112 (1930); Wright v. State, 182 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Stuckey v. State, 199 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Jenkins v. State, 208 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Cason v. State, 211 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Smith v. State, 221 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Gilbert v. State, 311 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herrera v. State, 532 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…t Gomez’ earlier alternative motions for suppression of the tape or severance of the trial; the trial court, however, did not rule on the severance motion, and Herrera did not adopt codefendant Gomez’ renewed motion for severance.3 Johnson v. State, 348 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Wright v. State, 318 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 334 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1976). Thus, the issue was not preserved. See State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974); Snead v. State, 415 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). E…
-
Smith v. State, 574 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…was raised solely by defendant Smith and was not also [*1197] raised, joined or adopted in any way by Washington, who, to the contrary, made a personal statement that he was satisfied with the result of the jury selection process. Johnson v. State, 348 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Wright v. State, 318 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 334 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1976); accord Barnes v. State, 168 Ga.App. 925, 310 S.E. 2d 777 (1983); People v. Foster, 100 A.D.2d 200, 473 N.Y.S.2d 978 (1984), cert. denie…
-
Tacoronte v. State, 419 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…so prejudicial nor fundamentally tainted as to require a new trial. Blair v. State, 406 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1981); State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.1980); Darden v. State, supra; Zamot v. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Johnson v. State, 348 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Frierson v. State, supra. As the court explained in Nevels v. State, 351 So. 2d 762, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977): “In any prosecution there are, of course, two parties involved; the State of Florida as the plaintiff and the person a…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Town of Boynton v. State, 100 Fla. 16 (Fla. 1930)
- Sanelco, Inc. v. Roger Wells & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1969)
- Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1975)
- Wingate v. State, 232 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Wright v. State, 182 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Cason v. State, 211 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Frierson v. State, 339 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Wright v. State, 318 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Conch v. City OF Miami, 199 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Gilbert v. State, 311 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)