Noriega v. State
228 So. 3d 170
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Emiliano E. Noriega was observed by homeowner Eduardo Godoy walking in Godoy’s backyard early Feb 8, 2016; Godoy confronted Noriega at gunpoint in driveway, Noriega dropped a bag and fled; police stopped him nearby.
- Noriega was charged with burglary of an occupied dwelling and petit theft; at trial, Godoy, his wife and daughter, and the arresting officer testified; defense denied entry and theft, testified Noriega was urinating near the property after leaving a Super Bowl party.
- Jury convicted Noriega of the lesser-included offense of trespass; defense theory (urinating outside property, not on it, and no theft) was presented in opening and at trial.
- In closing, the State argued there was “zero evidence” supporting the defense’s urination/bus-drop theory and urged the jury to decide “what is true,” asserting the evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Noriega did not object at trial but appealed, claiming the prosecutor’s comments shifted/misstated the burden of proof; he asked for fundamental-error review since no contemporaneous objection was made.
- The court reviewed the closing argument in context, applied invited-response and whole-closing standards, and affirmed the trespass conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s comment that there was “zero evidence” of urinating shifted burden of proof | State: comment was a proper rebuttal to defense theory and points out lack of evidence; invited response | Noriega: comment shifted burden to him to prove his theory (urinating) rather than State proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Held: No error — prosecutor permissibly rebutted defense theory; invited response doctrine applies |
| Whether prosecutor’s “what is true” theme misstated burden of proof | State: theme invited jury to assess credibility and evidence; closing as a whole repeatedly invoked beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard | Noriega: comment focused jury on believing State’s witnesses and credibility rather than reasonable-doubt standard, thus misstating burden | Held: No error — reviewing closing in full and with instructions, State did not misstate burden of proof |
| Whether unobjected-to remarks constitute fundamental error | State: no contemporaneous objection; comments were invited and not so prejudicial as to reach trial validity | Noriega: failure to object should be excused because cumulative comments amount to fundamental error | Held: No fundamental error — remarks did not reach level that a guilty verdict required their assistance |
| Whether jury instructions and whole-closing cure any potentially problematic remarks | State: trial court’s instructions and repeated correct burden language in closing cured any isolated phrasing | Noriega: isolated phrases undermined correct burden even with instructions | Held: Court found instructions and the overall closing preserved correct burden of proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. State, 66 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 2011) (State may point out lack of evidence for defense theory as invited response)
- Poole v. State, 997 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2008) (comments noting absence of evidence supporting defense theory are permissible)
- Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2000) (fundamental error standard for unpreserved claims)
- McDonald v. State, 743 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1999) (defines fundamental error as error reaching validity of trial)
- Merck v. State, 975 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2007) (assess closing argument as a whole)
- Wilchcombe v. State, 842 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (closing remarks evaluated in context; invited responses permissible)
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985) (contemporaneous objection requirement to preserve issues for appeal)