275 So. 3d 253
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant Daniel Thomas Fountain was convicted of shooting at or into an occupied vehicle and aggravated assault by threat with a deadly weapon.
- During rebuttal closing, the prosecutor told the jury: “...return a verdict that truth dictates and justice demands, and that is that this defendant is guilty as charged on both counts.”
- Defense immediately moved for a mistrial, arguing the comment improperly expressed the State’s view of guilt and would unduly influence the jury.
- The trial court denied the mistrial motion, finding the remark, viewed in context, referenced the strength of the State’s evidence and was not sufficiently pervasive to warrant a mistrial.
- On appeal, the First District reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and considered precedent limiting inflammatory “justice for the victim” arguments by prosecutors.
- The court concluded the remark was an isolated comment reflecting the State’s position on the evidence, not an impermissible attempt to inflame the jury, and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecutor’s closing remark (“truth dictates and justice demands... guilty”) warranted a mistrial | Fountain: statement improperly conveyed prosecutor’s opinion of guilt and would unduly influence jury, requiring mistrial | State: comment was a contextual reference to the strength of the evidence, isolated, and did not inflame or deprive fair trial | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; remark was isolated and referenced evidence rather than an impermissible appeal for ‘justice’ |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 96 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (standard for mistrial based on prosecutorial comments)
- Ruiz v. State, 743 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1999) (prosecutor may not inject personal opinion or call defendant a liar in closing)
- Spencer v. State, 645 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1994) (prosecutorial comments must meet a high threshold to justify mistrial)
- Cardona v. State, 185 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 2016) (condemning appeals for “justice for the victim” as highly improper and inflammatory)
- Truehill v. State, 211 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 2017) (isolated improper remark may not require reversal)
- Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1969) (prosecutor should not imply State would only prosecute the guilty)