Thompson v. State
88 So. 3d 322
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Thompson appeals convictions for attempted second-degree murder, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and robbery with a deadly weapon.
- For each count the jury found Thompson in actual possession of a firearm, discharged the firearm, and wore a mask.
- Thompson challenged the State’s voir dire questions about gunshot residue evidence; objections were sustained and curative instructions given.
- Mistrial motions were denied; the court later provided an additional curative instruction before opening statements.
- Thompson argued the State’s closing arguments included improper statements designed to undermine his defense; some statements were challenged as improper.
- The trial court denied mistrial and the court affirmed; the issues were reviewed for fundamental error and prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire, gunshot residue questions | Thompson contends voir dire questions were prejudicial and undermined his defense. | State claims curative instructions cured any prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; curative instructions cured any prejudice. |
| Closing arguments | State's closing argued facts not in evidence and shifted burden; appealed to conscience. | Arguments were within wide latitude of closing and not fundamental error if unobjected. | No fundamental error; two isolated improper comments not reversible; cumulative error rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Durrant v. State, 839 So.2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (mistrial standard—abuse of discretion)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla.2002) (mistrial only for prejudicial errors vitiating trial)
- Hoskins v. State, 965 So.2d 1 (Fla.2007) (voir dire purpose is fair and impartial jury)
- Ferreiro v. State, 936 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (voir dire and evidentiary limits)
- Evans v. State, 62 So.3d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (fundamental error standard in closing)
- Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895 (Fla. 1996) (fundamental error in closing arguments—burden on reviewing court)
- Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156 (Fla.2006) (invited response in closing argument)
- McKenzie v. State, 830 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (prosecutor comments must be based on evidence)
- Montanye v. State, 976 So.2d 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (improper credibility remarks need not be fatal if isolated)
- Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1 (Fla.1982) (latitude in closing argument)
- Thomas v. State, 748 So.2d 970 (Fla.1999) (new trial when remarks would have altered verdict)
- Roberts v. State, 840 So.2d 962 (Fla.2002) (cumulative error doctrine in closing arguments)