Russo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Russo v. State

786 So. 2d 674, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8026, 2001 WL 649149

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 2001

DocketNo. 4D00-1915

StatusPublished

This text of 786 So. 2d 674 (Russo 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

Russo v. State, 786 So. 2d 674, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8026, 2001 WL 649149 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error, much less a fundamental one, in the trial court’s reinstruction of the jury. Using the Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal), the trial court reinstructed the jury as to the elements of each count and the lesser included offenses. See Perriman v. State, 731 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Fla.1999).

As to the closing argument, there was no timely objection to two comments that might have been made under Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29, 37-40 (Fla. 2000). Where an objection was made, we find not a comment on the right to remain silent, but a reference to appellant’s out-of-court statement to a detective. In this case, the prosecutor was entitled to forcefully argue appellant’s credibility, especially since one of the charges was based on appellant giving a false name to the police at the time of his arrest. See Shellito v. State, 701 So.2d 837, 841-42 (Fla.1997).

Affirmed.

STONE, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error, much less a fundamental one, in the trial court’s reinstruction of the jury. Using the Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal), the trial court reinstructed the jury as to the elements of each count and the lesser included offenses. See Perriman v. State, 731 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Fla.1999).

As to the closing argument, there was no timely objection to two comments that might have been made under Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29, 37-40 (Fla. 2000). Where an objection was made, we find not a comment on the right to remain silent, but a reference to appellant’s out-of-court statement to a detective. In this case, the prosecutor was entitled to forcefully argue appellant’s credibility, especially since one of the charges was based on appellant giving a false name to the police at the time of his arrest. See Shellito v. State, 701 So.2d 837, 841-42 (Fla.1997).

Affirmed.

STONE, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

786 So. 2d 674, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8026, 2001 WL 649149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack