MUSTAFA A. ABDULLA v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 223 So. 3d 276

Background

Late-night convenience store incident: State alleges Abdulla pulled a concealed firearm from his waistband, threatened to shoot, pointed the gun at an employee, and ordered people out of the store; charged with aggravated assault with a firearm and carrying a concealed firearm.
Abdulla’s defense: He claimed he picked up the store’s firearm to defend himself from a knife-wielding customer and never pointed the gun at the employee.
A friend of Abdulla called by the State testified in a way favorable to Abdulla (that the gun came from the store and was used defensively).
The State impeached that witness with prior inconsistent statements the witness made to police shortly after the incident in which he said Abdulla pulled the gun from his waistband and threatened to shoot someone.
During closing argument the prosecutor (1) asked the jury to decide “what was his truth?” and urged they consider the witness’s prior statement as the true account, and (2) suggested the witness’s story changed after meeting with Abdulla and defense counsel, implying a strategy to suborn perjury.
Jury convicted Abdulla of improper exhibition of a firearm (lesser included) and carrying a concealed firearm; Abdulla appealed claiming prosecutorial misconduct in closing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Abdulla)	Held
Whether prosecutor improperly used prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence	Prior statements were shown to jury to impeach witness and to reveal truth; arguing which statement was true was proper advocacy	Prosecutor converted impeachment evidence into substantive proof, asking jurors to accept prior out-of-court statements as true	Court: Improper — prosecutor crossed line by urging jury to choose which statement was true and treating prior statement as substantive evidence
Whether prosecutor improperly suggested Abdulla/subordinates suborned perjury	Comments about meetings and strategizing were legitimate argument that witness changed story after reflection	Comments implied Abdulla and defense counsel induced witness to lie — unsupported and inflammatory accusation of suborning perjury	Court: Improper — suggesting defendant and counsel manufactured witness perjury lacked foundation and was prejudicial
Whether the errors were harmless	Errors were minor within expansive closing latitude; record supported convictions	The case turned on witness credibility; errors reasonably could have contributed to conviction	Court: Not harmless — reversal required because State didn’t show no reasonable possibility errors contributed to verdict
Remedy following prejudicial closing arguments	Convictions should stand given evidence and trial protections	Reversal and new trial on convictions (not aggravated-assault charge, which was implicitly acquitted)	Court: Reverse and remand for new trial on the offenses of conviction; aggravated-assault may not be retried

Key Cases Cited

Paul v. State, 958 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (standard of review for prosecutorial closing-argument claims)
McArthur v. State, 801 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (contextual review of closing arguments)
Espinoza v. State, 37 So. 3d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (prior inconsistent statements admissible only for impeachment, not as substantive proof)
Ivery v. State, 548 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (prior inconsistent statements cannot be used as substantive evidence)
Evans v. State, 62 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (impermissible to suggest defendant suborned perjury without record foundation)
State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error standard: reversal unless no reasonable possibility error contributed to conviction)
Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (U.S. 1957) (double-jeopardy principle limiting retrial on acquitted charges)
Middleton v. State, 131 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (same: retrial constraints where defendant was implicitly acquitted of greater charge)