LOUZON v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1043
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Louzon was convicted of robbery with a weapon after a jury trial.
- The robbery occurred in a hotel parking lot around 1:00 a.m.; the victim Stallings identified Louzon as the robber during police photo array, but testified at trial he did not recognize Louzon.
- Co‑defendants Browne and Chandler testified; Browne claimed Louzon also took six Oxycodone pills during the robbery.
- Stallings identified Louzon in a photo array pretrial but disavowed Louzon’s involvement at trial, saying the identification was of the most similar looking man.
- During closing, the prosecutor suggested Stallings was threatened and recanted his testimony; objections were overruled and a mistrial was sought.
- The court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to improper prosecutorial comments implying witness tampering.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial comments on threats | Louzon argues the comments implied witness tampering without evidence. | State contends comments were permissible bracketed by impeachment and credibility concerns. | Comments improper and prejudicial; reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penalver v. State, 926 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 2006) (prosecutor cannot imply witness was influenced by defendant without evidence)
- Tindal v. State, 803 So.2d 806 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (improper to claim witness was influenced by defense without support)
- Jones v. State, 449 So.2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (impeachment may implicate witness but not others' influence)
- Henry v. State, 651 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (prosecutor's remarks involving witness tampering are highly prejudicial)
- Cassista v. State, 57 So.3d 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (constructive custody concept for PRR discussion)