Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Cochran v. State

Cochran v. State

280 So. 2d 42
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 17, 1973·No. S-20·Published·Cited by 18 cases

Opinion

280 So.2d 42 (1973)

Richard A. COCHRAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-20.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 17, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Robert C. Parker, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Raymond L. Marky, and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.

The only point on appeal posed by appellant that merits our consideration is:

"The Court erred in denying defendant's [appellant's] objection to the comments of the Assistant State Attorney in regard to the time, manner and reason the defendant [appellant] testified on his own behalf."

A review of this record discloses an overwhelming case of appellant's guilt, and solely for this reason we agree with the State's contention that the harmless error doctrine is applicable.

By caveat, we note that the argument by Richard O. Watson, Assistant State *43 Attorney, as to defense technique and "... how defense lawyers operate ... ." is not only highly improper but it is unethical. Extensive time and effort is expended by law enforcement officers, jurors, witnesses, court attaches, attorneys and judges in bringing to the bar of justice those accused of transgressing the laws of this State. It is the duty of a prosecuting attorney in a trial to refrain from making improper remarks or committing acts which would or might tend to affect the fairness and impartiality to which the accused is entitled. His duty is not to obtain convictions but to seek justice, and he must exercise that responsibility with the circumspection and dignity the occasion calls for. Cases brought on behalf of the State of Florida should be conducted with a dignity worthy of the client.[1] In violating this duty, the prosecuting attorney jeopardizes all the effort and work expended by those above mentioned.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

RAWLS, C.J., and JOHNSON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] Kirk v. State, 227 So.2d 40 (4 Fla.App. 1969).

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

Cochran v. State, 280 So. 2d 42 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

280 So. 2d 42 (Cochran v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thornton v. State
852 So. 2d 911 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Lewis v. State
780 So. 2d 125 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Barnes v. State
743 So. 2d 1105 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Hightower v. State
592 So. 2d 689 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Nicholson v. State
486 So. 2d 688 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Briggs v. State
455 So. 2d 519 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Blackburn v. State
447 So. 2d 424 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
McGee v. State
435 So. 2d 854 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Westley v. State
416 So. 2d 18 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Melton v. State
402 So. 2d 30 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Hufham v. State
400 So. 2d 133 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Davis v. State
397 So. 2d 1005 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Porter v. State
386 So. 2d 1209 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Wilson v. State
371 So. 2d 126 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty
359 So. 2d 430 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
Simpson v. State
352 So. 2d 125 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Darden v. State
329 So. 2d 287 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1976)
Knight v. State
316 So. 2d 576 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)