James v. State
| Decision Date | 08 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1634,75-1634 |
| Citation | 334 So.2d 83 |
| Parties | Julius JAMES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Karen Gottlieb, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Linda C. Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roy J. Kahn, Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDAY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Defendant Julius 'Juice' James appeals his conviction of possession and sale of heroin following a jury trial.
Defendant urges as error the denial of his motion for new trial on the alleged grounds of newly discovered evidence, and prejudicial remarks of the prosecution in closing argument. The second ground arises out of the following comment by the prosecutor:
The law requires a new trial only in those cases in which it is reasonably evident that the statements made by prosecutors in closing argument were so inflammatory and abusive as to have influenced the jury to reach a more severe verdict of guilt than it would have otherwise done thereby depriving the accused of a fair trial. Darden v. State, Fla.1976, 329 So.2d 287. The law also requires that juries be composed of persons of sound judgment and intelligence, and it will not be presumed that they are led astray to wrongful verdicts by the impassioned eloquence and illogical pathos of counsel. Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392, 100 So. 254 (1924); Paramore v. State, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 855. When the prosecutor makes a statement to which defense counsel objects, the trial judge, who is in a position of experience and intimacy with the case which cannot be duplicated by any other tribunal, determines whether the jury would be so prejudiced by the comment as to render a verdict different from one properly supported by the evidence and presentation of counsel. Wingate v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 44.
The trial judge determined that the above remark of the prosecutor was not so inflammable and prejudical as to require a mistrial. We note from the record that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and also, the prosecutor did not directly remark that defendant was a pusher and find no abuse on the part of the trial judge of the great latitude of discretion afforded him in granting or denying motions for new trial. Cf. Darden, supra, and Wingate, supra.
We also reviewed the denial of defendant's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tacoronte v. State
...affirmed. Darden v. State, 329 So.2d 287 (Fla.1976), cert. dismissed, 430 U.S. 704, 97 S.Ct. 1671, 51 L.Ed.2d 751 (1977); James v. State, 334 So.2d 83 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). On the basis of the record before us, however, we find it unnecessary to determine whether the inference which the prosec......
-
Lopez v. State, 88-1166
...Oliva v. State, 346 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1010, 98 S.Ct. 719, 54 L.Ed.2d 752 (1978); James v. State, 334 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Darden v. State, 329 So.2d 287 (Fla.1976), cert. dismissed, 430 U.S. 704, 97 S.Ct. 1671, 51 L.Ed.2d 751 A review of the recor......
-
Northern v. State, 79-2245
...So.2d 413 (Fla.1976); Zamot v. State, 375 So.2d 881 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Johnson v. State, 348 So.2d 646 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); James v. State, 334 So.2d 83 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). ...
-
Botwinick v. State, 76--751
...was ever adduced, we remain unconvinced that he was so prejudiced by this question as to be denied a fair trial. See James v. State, 334 So.2d 83 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). ...