From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Price v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 26, 1972
267 So. 2d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Summary

In Price, supra, the Court reversed a conviction for robbery because the prosecutor stated during closing argument, "... if this man had not been named and not been identified in Mr. Devoe's confession, he would not be here before you because [the] State has no reason to bring an innocent man before you and prosecute him..."

Summary of this case from Cumbie v. State

Opinion

No. 72-32.

September 26, 1972.

Appeal from the Court of Record for Brevard County, A.J. Hosemann, Jr., J.

Kenneth A. Studstill, of Twyford Studstill, Titusville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Appellant's robbery conviction and life sentence must be reversed because certain remarks made by the prosecutor in his closing argument to the jury were of such a character as to deprive appellant of his fundamental right to a fair trial. See Sherman v. State, Fla. 1971, 255 So.2d 263; Grant v. State, Fla. 1967, 194 So.2d 612; Chavez v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 215 So.2d 750; Davis v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So.2d 41.

The record shows that during closing argument by the prosecutor, Mr. Chesire, the following occurred.
"MR. CHESHIRE: . . . Then you must believe in the integrity of our system if this man had not been named and not been identified in Mr. Devoe's confession, he would not be here before you because [the] State has no reason to bring an innocent man before you and prosecute him and expose him to what this man has been —
"MR. STUDSTILL: I'm going to object to that kind of argument. He's integrating something here that's not the law, I hesitate to object, but talking about the State had no reason to do this and that —
"MR. CHESHIRE: It's quite common to say the State has every right to rebut that.
"THE COURT: Let me tell the Jury this. The argument of counsel for either the state or defendant are not evidence and are not to be considered by you as evidence. Counsel has the right to draw whatever reasonable inferences they can from the evidence. Alright. You may proceed.
"MR. CHESHIRE: Thank you. I think I have made my point. . . ."

On the authority of the foregoing, as well as the numerous cases cited therein, the judgment and sentence are severally reversed and this cause is remanded for a new trial.

Reversed.

REED, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.


Summaries of

Price v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 26, 1972
267 So. 2d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

In Price, supra, the Court reversed a conviction for robbery because the prosecutor stated during closing argument, "... if this man had not been named and not been identified in Mr. Devoe's confession, he would not be here before you because [the] State has no reason to bring an innocent man before you and prosecute him..."

Summary of this case from Cumbie v. State
Case details for

Price v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOHNNY LEE PRICE, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Sep 26, 1972

Citations

267 So. 2d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Citing Cases

Silvestri v. State

" This Court likewise held in Price v. State, 267 So.2d 39 (Fla.App.4th 1972) that remarks similar to those…

Wilson v. State

233 So.2d at 154-155. See also Price v. State, 267 So.2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Chavez v. State, 215 So.2d…