Nelson v. State
Decision Date | 14 July 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 81-2396,81-2396 |
Citation | 416 So.2d 899 |
Parties | Dana Lamar NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Robert J. Krauss, Asst. Public Defender, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Dana Lamar Nelson appeals his conviction for second degree murder, contending that the prosecutor violated his constitutional right to remain silent by commenting on his failure to make an exculpatory statement prior to trial. We disagree and affirm.
Nelson, employed as a bartender at the Manhattan Bar in St. Petersburg, shot and killed Alton Harden during a dispute arising out of the sale by Harden to Nelson of a toy pistol which Harden represented at the time of sale as being real. From the time of the shooting until his trial, Nelson gave no statements about the incident. At trial, he testified on direct, describing the shooting as accidental and partly motivated by self-defense.
The prosecutor cross-examined Nelson as follows:
The right to remain silent has historically received strict protection in our state. Simpson v. State, --- So.2d ---- No. 49,681 (Fla., filed April 8, 1982); Willinsky v. State, 360 So.2d 760 (Fla.1978); Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975); Simmons v. State, 139 Fla. 645, 190 So. 756 (1939). However, a prosecutor's remarks must always be examined with an eye to the context in which they appear. State v. Jones...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. State, 82-1016
...in context with other circumstances appearing in the record. Coleman v. State, 420 So.2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Nelson v. State, 416 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); McMillian v. State, 409 So.2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). A synopsis of the applicable law concerning prosecutorial misconduct can......
-
Stancle v. State, 4D01-1455.
...should be examined in the context in which it is made. McArthur v. State, 801 So.2d 1037, 1040 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Nelson v. State, 416 So.2d 899, 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). This is particularly so where invited by the nature of the defense. See State v. Sheperd, 479 So.2d 106, 107 (Fla.1985)......
-
Lane v. State, 82-2202
...Second, we do not find that the asserted improprieties in the prosecutor's final argument require a new trial. Nelson v. State, 416 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Williams v. State, 425 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA Affirmed. 1 The prosecutor asserted the contrary under an apparently-self-created b......
-
Castanon v. State
...State, 854 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing McArthur v. State, 801 So.2d 1037, 1040 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) and Nelson v. State, 416 So.2d 899, 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) ). In reviewing allegations of improper argument, appellate courts should recognize that “[a] trial court has discreti......