Cochran v. State, S--20
| Decision Date | 17 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. S--20,S--20 |
| Citation | 280 So.2d 42 |
| Parties | Richard A. COCHRAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Robert C. Parker, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Raymond L. Marky, and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
The only point on appeal posed by appellant that merits our consideration is:
'The Court erred in denying defendant's (appellant's) objection to the comments of the Assistant State Attorney in regard to the time, manner and reason the defendant (appellant) testified on his own behalf.'
A review of this record discloses an overwhelming case of appellant's guilt, and solely for this reason we agree with the State contention that the harmless error doctrine is applicable.
By caveat, we note that the argument by Richard O. Watson, Assistant State Attorney, as to defense technique and '. . . how defense lawyers operate . . ..' is not only highly improper but it is unethical. Extensive time and effort is expended by law enforcement officers, jurors, witnesses, court attache s, attorneys and judges in bringing to the bar of justice those accused of transgressing the laws of this State. It is the duty of a prosecuting attorney in a trial to refrain from making improper remarks or committing acts which would or might tend to affect the fairness and impartiality to which the accused is entitled. His duty is not to obtain convictions but to seek justice, and he must exercise that responsibility with the circumspection and dignity the occasion calls for. Cases brought on behalf of the State of Florida should be conducted with a dignity worthy of the client. 1 In violating this duty, the prosecuting attorney jeopardizes all the effort the work expended by those above mentioned.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
1 Kirk v. State, 227 So.2d 40 (4 Fla.App.1969).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty
...the possibility of P. D. and could be subjected to a malpractice claim as a result of such oversight.11 See Cochran v. State, 280 So.2d 42, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) (prosecutor's argument about "how defense lawyers operate"); Simpson v. State, 352 So.2d 125, 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (prosecuto......
-
Barnes v. State, 98-0299.
...the person of defense counsel is now well established. See Briggs v. State, 455 So.2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Cochran v. State, 280 So.2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Simpson v. State, 352 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Hufham v. State, 400 So.2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Melton v. State, 402 So......
-
Thornton v. State
...DCA 1981); Simpson v. State, 352 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Thompson v. State, 318 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Cochran v. State, 280 So.2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). The most egregious of these comments was the one suggesting that defense counsel had "scripted," i.e. suborned, what the ......
-
McGee v. State
...condemned such language in the past, and have no intention of departing from our prior decisions on this point. See, Cochran v. State, 280 So.2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Reed v. State, 333 So.2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Simpson v. State, 352 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Melton v. State, 40......