Morgan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morgan v. State

464 So. 2d 1306, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 658, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12943

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 1985

DocketNo. 83-45

StatusPublished

This text of 464 So. 2d 1306 (Morgan 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

Morgan v. State, 464 So. 2d 1306, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 658, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12943 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

BARKETT, Judge.

This appeal results from prosecu-torial misconduct during closing argument which appellant suggests warrants reversal of his conviction for second degree murder and aggravated battery. Both parties agree that this issue must be reviewed under the fundamental error standard in view of defense counsel’s failure to object at trial. See Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331, 333 (Fla.1978). The State does not contest the impropriety of the challenged remarks by the assistant state attorney. We agree that the comments in question are clearly improper and deplore such conduct which, in a different case, could result in a reversal of a conviction necessitating the expenditures of additional public monies for a delayed second trial. Our supreme court, however, in State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1984), has told us:

[Pjrosecutorial misconduct or indifference to judicial admonitions is the proper subject of bar disciplinary action. Reversal of the conviction is a separate matter; it is the duty of appellate courts to consider the record as a whole and to ignore harmless error, including most constitutional violations.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the improper conduct must be deemed harmless because of the totality of the evidence in this case.

The second issue raised by appellant is without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ„ concur.

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

BARKETT, Judge.

This appeal results from prosecu-torial misconduct during closing argument which appellant suggests warrants reversal of his conviction for second degree murder and aggravated battery. Both parties agree that this issue must be reviewed under the fundamental error standard in view of defense counsel’s failure to object at trial. See Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331, 333 (Fla.1978). The State does not contest the impropriety of the challenged remarks by the assistant state attorney. We agree that the comments in question are clearly improper and deplore such conduct which, in a different case, could result in a reversal of a conviction necessitating the expenditures of additional public monies for a delayed second trial. Our supreme court, however, in State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1984), has told us:

[Pjrosecutorial misconduct or indifference to judicial admonitions is the proper subject of bar disciplinary action. Reversal of the conviction is a separate matter; it is the duty of appellate courts to consider the record as a whole and to ignore harmless error, including most constitutional violations.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the improper conduct must be deemed harmless because of the totality of the evidence in this case.

The second issue raised by appellant is without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 So. 2d 1306, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 658, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack