Pino v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pino v. State

776 So. 2d 1081, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1085, 2001 WL 98693

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

DocketNo. 3D99-3015

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 776 So. 2d 1081 (Pino 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

Pino v. State, 776 So. 2d 1081, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1085, 2001 WL 98693 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Alberto Lazaro Pino, appeals from his conviction for vehicular homicide. We affirm.

During closing argument, the prosecutor stated that the defendant was a “liar,” that the defendant had told “lies,” and that the defendant had “lied.” The defendant contends that these arguments were improper. We disagree. In Murphy v. International Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010, 1028-29 (Fla.2000), the Florida Supreme Court held:

it is not improper for counsel to state during closing argument that a witness “lied” or is a “liar,” provided such characterizations are supported by the record. If the evidence supports such a characterization, counsel is not imper-missibly stating a personal opinion about the credibility of a witness, but is instead submitting to the jury a conclusion that reasonably may be drawn from the evidence.

(citations and footnote omitted). After carefully reviewing the record, we find that prosecutor’s characterizations of the defendant are supported by the record.

The remaining contention raised by the defendant lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

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