Bethea v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bethea v. State

911 So. 2d 215, 2005 WL 2319749

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 23, 2006

DocketNo. 2D04-4036

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 911 So. 2d 215 (Bethea v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bethea v. State, 911 So. 2d 215, 2005 WL 2319749 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. We write only to comment that, although not rising to the ■ level of fundamental error, the prosecutor’s closing argument in this case exceeded the bounds of proper argument. Again, we reiterate the admonition of Judge Blue in his specially concurring opinion in Luce v. State, 642 So.2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994): “Trial attorneys must avoid improper argument if the system is to work properly. If attorneys do not recognize improper argument, they should not be in a courtroom. If trial attorneys recognize improper argument and persist in its use, they should not be members of The Florida Bar.”

If the prosecutor intends to continue to appear in criminal court, we suggest that he view continuing education videotapes on [216]*216the subject of closing argument to review arguments that' should not be made before a jury. If he persists in disregarding the rules of proper argument, he should expect appropriate sanctions. See Bell v. State, 723 So.2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (Altenbernd, J., concurring).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, CASANUEVA, and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. We write only to comment that, although not rising to the ■ level of fundamental error, the prosecutor’s closing argument in this case exceeded the bounds of proper argument. Again, we reiterate the admonition of Judge Blue in his specially concurring opinion in Luce v. State, 642 So.2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994): “Trial attorneys must avoid improper argument if the system is to work properly. If attorneys do not recognize improper argument, they should not be in a courtroom. If trial attorneys recognize improper argument and persist in its use, they should not be members of The Florida Bar.”

If the prosecutor intends to continue to appear in criminal court, we suggest that he view continuing education videotapes on [216]*216the subject of closing argument to review arguments that' should not be made before a jury. If he persists in disregarding the rules of proper argument, he should expect appropriate sanctions. See Bell v. State, 723 So.2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (Altenbernd, J., concurring).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, CASANUEVA, and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

911 So. 2d 215, 2005 WL 2319749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bethea-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack