Crew v. State
2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13451
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Jerry Crew was convicted of second-degree felony murder and robbery after a motel room shooting following a plan to attack a rival drug dealer.
- Broadwater testified kidnapping/robbery plan to take Kloc’s property; testimony about whether Appellant knew of the robbery plan was conflicting.
- Appellant requested an afterthought (special) jury instruction stating theft could result if the taking occurred as an afterthought to force/violence.
- Trial court denied the instruction, ruling the standard robbery instruction adequately covered the theory of defense.
- During closing, the prosecutor made numerous inflammatory and improper comments about defense counsel, the defendant, and the victim’s family, including personal attacks and misrepresentations of evidence.
- Jury returned guilty verdicts on second-degree felony murder and robbery; post-trial motions and objections followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the afterthought instructions required and was their denial reversible? | Crew supported by Broadwater’s testimony merited the afterthought instruction. | Standard instruction insufficient to cover theory; the instruction correctly stated law and was non-misleading. | Reversed for new trial; afterthought instruction required. |
| Did the prosecutor's closing argument constitute fundamental error when viewed cumulatively? | Prosecutor’s misconduct deprived Crew of a fair trial due to misrepresentation and attacks. | No fundamental error; any errors were harmless or properly addressed. | Reversed for new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 922 So.2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (afterthought instruction required where supported by evidence)
- DeJesus v. State, 98 So.3d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (trial court abuse when denying afterthought instruction)
- Wheeler v. State, 4 So.3d 599 (Fla. 2009) (entitlement to special jury instruction for theory of defense)
- Merck v. State, 975 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2007) (prosecutorial closing argument standard; cumulative error standard)
- Pacifico v. State, 642 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (prosecutor's improper characterizations of defendant)
- Ruiz v. State, 743 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1999) (closing argument permissible range; improper remarks limit)