Crews v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crews v. State

589 So. 2d 468, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11995, 1991 WL 253829

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 3, 1991·No. No. 91-972·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. We hold that these remarks do not rise to the level of prejudice necessary to warrant a new trial. See Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882, 103 S.Ct. 184, 74 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982); State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1984) (error does not warrant reversal unless it was “so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial”). Compare Alvarez v. State, 574 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (egregious comments made throughout the State’s closing argument required reversal).

We find no merit m the other issues raised on appeal.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. We hold that these remarks do not rise to the level of prejudice necessary to warrant a new trial. See Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882, 103 S.Ct. 184, 74 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982); State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1984) (error does not warrant reversal unless it was “so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial”). Compare Alvarez v. State, 574 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (egregious comments made throughout the State’s closing argument required reversal).

We find no merit m the other issues raised on appeal.

Affirmed.

Crews v. State, 589 So. 2d 468, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11995, 1991 WL 253829 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

589 So. 2d 468 (Crews v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related