Sampson v. State, 213 So. 3d 1090

Anthony Sampson was tried for second-degree murder, robbery with a deadly weapon, grand theft of a vehicle, and burglary; he was convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, and grand theft and acquitted of burglary.
Sampson admitted taking valuables and the victim’s car but argued at trial he was only guilty of manslaughter and theft (lesser included offenses).
On appeal Sampson challenged several prosecutor statements made during closing argument that were not contemporaneously objected to; he argued they amounted to fundamental error requiring a new trial.
The challenged remarks included: (1) a Golden Rule appeal inviting jurors to imagine the victim’s pain during strangulation, and (2) repeated references that convicting of manslaughter would be a “miscarriage of justice” and exhortations to "do justice" for the victim/next of kin.
The court reviewed whether unpreserved comments, considered cumulatively, rose to fundamental error that undermined the validity of the trial verdict.
The court concluded the comments were improper (and warned prosecutors about recurring misconduct) but did not constitute fundamental error requiring reversal; convictions were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did prosecutor’s unobjected-to closing remarks constitute fundamental error?	Prosecutor: remarks were within bounds of arguing evidence and law; did not require reversal.	Sampson: cumulative improper remarks deprived him of a fair trial and were fundamental error.	Court: Remarks were improper but did not reach level of fundamental error; affirm convictions.
Was the "Golden Rule" argument (inviting jurors to imagine victim’s suffering) permissible?	State: testimony supported depiction of prolonged, painful death.	Sampson: inviting jurors to put themselves in victim’s place was classic Golden Rule misconduct.	Court: Golden Rule argument improper; Mosely distinguishable and inapplicable.
Was the "miscarriage of justice" exhortation acceptable?	State: phrase appears in jury instruction; some contextual use is permissible.	Sampson: such exhortations pressure jurors and appeal to sympathy, undermining impartiality.	Court: Some uses were permissible in context, but exhortatory appeals ("it would be a miscarriage of justice to this court, to yourself, to the next of kin") were improper.
Does failure to contemporaneously object bar appellate review?	State: absent contemporaneous objection, review is waived unless fundamental error.	Sampson: error was fundamental and thus reviewable despite waiver.	Court: Standard waiver rule applies; only fundamental error exception available; Sampson failed to show comments cumulatively were fundamental error.

McDonald v. State, 743 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1999) (contemporaneous-objection rule and fundamental-error exception)
Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2000) (cumulative-effect analysis of improper argument)
Braddy v. State, 111 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 2012) (discussion of "miscarriage of justice" remarks and jury pressure)
State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991) (fundamental-error standard: error must reach validity of trial)
Mosley v. State, 46 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2009) (government may rely on victim-suffering evidence but cannot invite jurors to adopt victim’s perspective)
Doorbal v. State, 837 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2002) (Golden Rule violation example)
Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1985) (prosecutorial misconduct warnings)
Bell v. State, 108 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 2013) (improper argument and reversal standards)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1935) (prosecutor’s special duty to seek justice, not merely conviction)