Bullard v. State, 82-777
| Decision Date | 26 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-777,82-777 |
| Citation | 436 So.2d 962 |
| Parties | Donnie BULLARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender and Paula J. Rhoads, Legal Intern, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Marti Rothenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Grossly improper prosecutorial comments and conduct alleged to have tainted Bullard's trial for aggravated assault and armed robbery are the subjects of this appeal. Although the trial was replete with improper comments and conduct by the prosecutor, defense counsel's failure to preserve the record for appellate review precludes reversal on all but one ground. This fatal error occurred when the court permitted the state to present a "golden rule" argument during closing remarks. Barnes v. State, 58 So.2d 157 (Fla.1952); Peterson v. State, 376 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Lucas v. State, 335 So.2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). See Wheeler v. State, 425 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
In response to the defense of misidentification, the prosecutor urged:
By advancing a "golden rule" argument, that is, asking the jurors to place themselves in the victim's position, the prosecutor violated defendant Bullard's right to a fair trial by impartial jurors. See Lucas. We find that this issue has been preserved for appellate review under the "contemporaneous objection rule" set forth in Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978). The record reflects that defense counsel made a timely objection to the improper remarks and that the trial judge immediately overruled the objection. In Simpson v. State, 418 So.2d 984, 986 (Fla.1982), the court observed:
[W]here clearly a timely objection to the improper comment was made by defense counsel, and where the judge unequivocally and without hesitation overruled the objections, the issue of the admission of such testimony and comments before the jury is properly preserved for appeal.
Bullard asserts as error several other instances of prosecutorial misconduct; as we noted earlier, none of these comments or actions warrants reversal because defense counsel failed to preserve the improprieties for appellate review. For example, during another portion of closing argument, the prosecutor improperly stated:
From that stand Manuel Guarch and Rolando Vasquez identified this creature, this thing, this person who deprived these people of their rights ....
* * *
This man has lied before and he lies to you today. He's been convicted nine times, 1 that's too many, once was too many. Surely we have pardoned him enough.[ 2 There is no room for sympathy, there is no room for mercy, there's only room for finding this man guilty of the crime as charged.
Although these comments impermissibly placed Bullard's character in issue, see, e.g., Lewis v. State, 377 So.2d 640 (Fla.1979); Albright v. State, 378 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Donaldson v. State, 369 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), defense counsel offered no objection.
As to the prosecutor's specific acts of misconduct, defense counsel reminded the jury during closing argument, without contradiction by the state, that the prosecutor had "gone to great extent to put on the shirt, to point the gun at you, to point the gun around the courtroom ...." However, the record fails to reflect the specific gestures at the precise time they occurred. Furthermore, neither objection by defense counsel nor motion for mistrial or curative instruction appears on the record with regard to this conduct.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chisolm v. State, 57827
...on "golden rule" arguments should not extend as well to criminal cases. See Tuff v. State, 509 So.2d 953 (Fla.App.1987); Bullard v. State, 436 So.2d 962 (Fla.App.1983); Bertolotti v. State, 476 So.2d 130, 133 (Fla.1985); Estes v. Commonwealth, 744 S.W.2d 421, 426 (Ky.1987); and Lycans v. Co......
-
State v. Liegakos
...case, a 'golden rule' argument would ask the jurors to place themselves in the victim's shoes. See, e.g., Bullard v. State, 436 So.2d 962, 962-63 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983). These statements are not allowed because they appeal to the jurors' sympathy for persons who have been injured or vic......
-
Bell v. State, 90-829
...obviously hearsay, and was improperly admitted by the trial court. See Davis v. State, 493 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Bullard v. State, 436 So.2d 962 (3d DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984); Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 411 So.2d 384 Contrar......
-
Simmons v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 83-937
...Simpson v. State, 418 So.2d 984, 986 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1156, 103 S.Ct. 801, 74 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1983); Bullard v. State, 436 So.2d 962, 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984). Second, the probative value of the evidence, even if marginally rel......