Walker v. State

• Decision Date: 27 May 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-2497,97-2497
• Citation: 710 So. 2d 1029
• Parties: 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1304 John Davis WALKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1029

710 So.2d 1029

23 Fla. L. Weekly D1304

John Davis WALKER, Appellant, v.The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-2497.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 27, 1998.

Andrew F. Rier, Miami, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Consuelo Maingot, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse defendant's convictions and remand for a new trial on the basis of the prosecutor's comments.The prosecutor described the defendant as "repulsive", and argued to the jury that he"has the face of a liar" and that he treated his wife like a dog.When she cross examined defendant, the prosecutor derogatorily compared him to an actor/used car salesman in the movie "Cadillac Man."

These comments were entirely improper.They were offensive to any notion of a fair trial and require reversal.SeePerez v. State, 689 So.2d 306, 307(Fla. 3d DCA1997)("Because our system treats persons on their own individual merits, it is always wrong to call witnesses or defendants names by citing them as examples of a criminal 'type' ");Duque v. State, 498 So.2d 1334, 1337(Fla. 2d DCA1986);Green v. State, 427 So.2d 1036, 1038(Fla. 3d DCA)("It is improper in the prosecution of persons charged with a crime for the representative of the state to apply offensive epithets to defendants or their witnesses, and to engage in vituperative characterizations of them."), review denied, 438 So.2d 834(Fla.1983);Jackson v. State, 421 So.2d 15, 16(Fla. 3d DCA1982);Peterson v. State, 376 So.2d 1230, 1231-32(Fla. 4th DCA1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 642(Fla.1980).

We find no merit in the evidentiary points on appeal.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.