Glispy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Glispy v. State

940 So. 2d 608, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18292, 2006 WL 3078019

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 1, 2006

DocketNo. 4D05-1188

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 940 So. 2d 608 (Glispy 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

Glispy v. State, 940 So. 2d 608, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18292, 2006 WL 3078019 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

WARNER, J.

Appellant challenges his conviction for driving a motor vehicle with a revoked license, claiming that the prosecutor made two prejudicial comments in closing argument. First, the prosecutor told the jury that the state’s sole witness, a state trooper, was being truthful and reliable. The comment was in response to the defense’s attack on the trooper’s credibili[609]*609ty, and the prosecutor’s comment did not place the prestige of the government behind the trooper or comment on matters outside the record. See Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943, 953 (Fla.2004). Therefore, we find no error. As to the second comment, which the defense states was a comment implicating the right to remain silent, we do not view it in the same light. The prosecutor started to say, “And there’s no evidence before you to contradict ” before being cut off by a defense objection. Immediately prior to this, the prosecutor was again talking about the trooper’s actions and credibility. We find it questionable that this was a comment on silence, but even if it was, we conclude that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986).

STEVENSON, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur.

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

WARNER, J.

Appellant challenges his conviction for driving a motor vehicle with a revoked license, claiming that the prosecutor made two prejudicial comments in closing argument. First, the prosecutor told the jury that the state’s sole witness, a state trooper, was being truthful and reliable. The comment was in response to the defense’s attack on the trooper’s credibili[609]*609ty, and the prosecutor’s comment did not place the prestige of the government behind the trooper or comment on matters outside the record. See Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943, 953 (Fla.2004). Therefore, we find no error. As to the second comment, which the defense states was a comment implicating the right to remain silent, we do not view it in the same light. The prosecutor started to say, “And there’s no evidence before you to contradict ” before being cut off by a defense objection. Immediately prior to this, the prosecutor was again talking about the trooper’s actions and credibility. We find it questionable that this was a comment on silence, but even if it was, we conclude that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986).

STEVENSON, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

940 So. 2d 608, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18292, 2006 WL 3078019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glispy-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack