Perdomo v. State, 82-1133
| Decision Date | 18 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1133,82-1133 |
| Citation | 439 So.2d 314 |
| Parties | Pedro Pablo PERDOMO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Diane Zimmer Leeds, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and NESBITT, JJ.
Defendant appeals his conviction for robbery alleging that a new trial is warranted because of the prosecutor's improper closing remarks. We agree.
The offending comment is as follows:
[PROSECUTOR]: ...
In fact, unfortunately, most criminals prey on people who are by themselves. They wait for this woman walking alone back to her car at night, to pounce on her and steal her purse and get away with it. Just because there was no other witnesses to the actual commission of the crime does not create a reasonable doubt. There is a reason why, to choose members of Dade County ot [sic] sit on juries--because this is your county, and when you sit as a juror, your job is to decide what you think is criminal conduct in Dade County, and if you want to send a message out there, "Listen robbers you're picking on somebody by themself, we are going to let you go because there is no corroborating evidence, we find the defendant not guilty," then walk him out of the door, set him free, that is fine with me. If that is what you want to happen in Dade County, you do that.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't think that is what you want to happen in Dade County.
....
Immediately after the prosecutor completed his closing statement, this discussion ensued:
While the defense counsel's general objection was insufficient, see Ferguson v. State, 417 So.2d 639 (Fla.1982), the motion for a mistrial at the close of the prosecutor's argument was timely made to preserve the error for our review. State v. Cumbie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla.1980). Gauging by the trial judge's response, we have no doubt that it was sufficiently specific to apprise the trial court of the potential error as is required by Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701 (Fla.1978).
Reaching the merits, we find, in accordance with numerous decisions on this issue, that the prosecutor's comment improperly directed the jury to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused based on the potential message which it would send to the criminal community. See e.g., Hines v. State, 425 So.2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 430 So.2d 452 (Fla.1983); Harris v. State, 414 So.2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); McMillian v. State, 409 So.2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Reed v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caraballo v. State
...to cure the error in his motion for mistrial by specifically delineating the objectionable comments in his motion. See Perdomo v. State, 439 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Finally, defendant failed to move for a mistrial or to request a curative instruction as to the comment to which he rais......
-
Millett v. State, AX-377
...potential error," and it was not incumbent upon him to move for a corrective instruction under such circumstances. Perdomo v. State, 439 So.2d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). It remains to be seen, however, whether the error, given the facts of the case, can be deemed harmless. In our view it ......