Thompson v. State
Citation | 318 So.2d 549 |
Decision Date | 22 August 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 74--87,74--87 |
Parties | Raymond M. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Peter F. K. Baraban, North Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert B. Breisblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana in excess of five grams. Of the several points he urges as error on appeal, we find merit in only one, that relating to improper and prejudicial remarks made by the prosecutor in his closing argument to the jury, but this error alone is sufficient basis for reversing appellant's conviction and remanding the cause for a new trial.
The evidence adduced at trial revealed this to be a 'close case'. Pursuant to a search warrant directing that a search be made of appellant's 'premises', the Hollywood police found and seized the drugs giving rise to the instant prosecution in the yard adjacent to appellant's converted garage residence. Several other residences abutted this yard, however, and various other persons besides appellant had access to it. The only evidence linking the seized drugs to appellant was the testimony of one officer at the scene, a Detective Frazer, that when the drugs were discovered, appellant stated, 'Hey man, you found my stash' and Despite the fact that approximately ten police officers were at the scene to conduct the search, the State produced only Frazer to testify as to these critical damaging admissions. Appellant took the stand in his own behalf and categorically denied ever making any such statements.
The prosecutor freely admitted in his closing argument to the jury that the defendant's alleged admissions were crucial to the establishment of the State's case, that the State's case hung on the jury's acceptance of Detective Frazer's word over that of appellant:
'But the key point, the place we are hanging our hat, and we are sticking our case on, the most important point of this whole case, are the damning statements that the Defendant made himself.
'If it weren't for those statements, we wouldn't be here today, because I wouldn't have a case.'
Unfortunately, however, the prosecutor did not leave the subject with these comments, but continued:
'Now there were a lot of officers there; and I did tell you that I was going to present five of them. This was a mistake on my part, because at the time I thought that I was going to, but there wasn't any need.
'I said to myself, 'Should I swamp them in quantity, or shall I give them one good witness?' I just presented one witness who heard those statements.
We note, at the outset, that the absence of an appropriate objection or motion by defense counsel below is not fatal to our consideration of this point on appeal. The rule is generally stated that:
Carlile v. State, 129 Fla. 860, 176 So. 862, 864 (1937).
Accord, Wilson v. State, 294 So.2d 327 (Fla.1974); Grant v. State, 194 So.2d 612 (Fla.1967); Pait v. State, 112 So.2d 380, 385 (Fla.1959); Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596, 600 (1940). We believe the prosecutor's remarks in this case to have been so prejudicial to the rights of the accused and unsusceptible to eradication by rebuke or retraction as to necessitate the reversal of appellant's conviction for the award of a new trial.
It is well settled that a prosecutor must confine his closing argument to evidence in the record and must not make comments which could not be reasonably inferred from that evidence. Blanco v. State, 150 Fla. 98, 7 So.2d 333, 339 (1942). While some cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Smith
...(1883); State v. Gunderson, 26 N.D. 294, 144 N.W. 659 (1913); State v. Thayer, 124 Ohio St. 1, 176 N.E. 656 (Ohio 1931); Thompson v. State, 318 So.2d 549 (Fla.App.1975), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 465 (1976); People v. Young, 33 Ill.App.3d 443, 337 N.E.2d 40 (Ill.App.1975); People v. Montevecc......
-
Barnes v. State, 98-0299.
...Landry v. State, 620 So.2d 1099, 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Ryan v. State, 457 So.2d 1084, 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Thompson v. State, 318 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 465 (Fla.1976); see also Valdez v. State, 613 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). As we said in Ryan, ......
-
Thornton v. State
...DCA 1981); Hufham v. State, 400 So.2d 133 (Fla. 5th 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 defe......
-
Eley v. State
...guilt which he did not present during his case, e.g., United States v. Sawyer, 347 F.2d 372 (4th Cir. 1965); Thompson v. State, 318 So.2d 549 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975); Annot., 90 A.L.R.3d 646 (1979), or where the prosecutor expressly argues that certain events did or did not happen when there......