Frierson v. State, 76--240
| Decision Date | 23 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--240,76--240 |
| Citation | 339 So.2d 312 |
| Parties | Edward Alonzo FRIERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbert, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HENDRY and HATHAN, JJ.
Edward Alonzo Frierson was charged by information with second degree murder. He was tried by jury, found guilty of third degree murder, convicted and sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying defense counsel's motion for a mistrial based on an allegedly inflammatory and prejudicial comment made by the prosecutor in closing argument.
As a general rule, a considerable degree of latitude is allowed prosecutors in closing argument to the jury, and logical inferences from the evidence are permissible. Wilson v. State, 305 So.2d 50, 52 (Fla.3rd DCA 1974); Thomas v. State, 326 So.2d 413, 415 (Fla.1975), and cases cited therein. Accord: Johnsen v. State, 332 So.2d 69 (Fla.1976). Each case involving an alleged inflammatory or abusive remark by the prosecutor must be considered on its own merits and within the circumstances existing at the time the questionable statement was made, and if there is ample basis in the record to support the remark, a conviction will be affirmed. Darden v. State, 329 So.2d 287, 291 (Fla.1976).
In the context of the record in this case, the remark was neither so harmful, nor fundamentally tainted as to require a new trial. A mistrial is the remedy when the corrective instruction is denied or is inadequate or when the offense is repeated. Mabery v. State, 303 So.2d 369 (Fla.3rd DCA 1974). Accordingly, we find that the trial court acted properly in instructing the jury to disregard the remark and in not granting a mistrial.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tacoronte v. State
...is allowed the prosecutor in closing argument. Thomas v. State, 326 So.2d 413 (Fla.1975); Gosney v. State, supra; Frierson v. State, 339 So.2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). An attorney is allowed to urge the conclusions he thinks the jury should draw from the evidence, United States v. Allen, 588......
-
Graham v. State, 77-302
...So.2d 168 (1943); Davis v. State, 349 So.2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Shapiro v. State, 345 So.2d 361 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Frierson v. State, 339 So.2d 312 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Wilson v. State, 305 So.2d 50 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Lawson v. State, 304 So.2d 522 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Foster v. State, 266......
-
Johnson v. State, 76-1194
...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 Last, the record reflects that counsel for co-defendant upon objection a......
-
Lynn v. State, SS-519
...and request for curative instructions. Appellant should not be heard to complain when that remedy was not sought. See Frierson v. State, 339 So.2d 312 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), where the court held the prosecutor's remarks in closing argument were not so harmful as to require a new trial. The cour......