Houston v. State

Mar 3, 1981
77-1950
Reporters:
Before:
Barkdull, Hendry, Schwartz (per curiam)

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged, tried and convicted of the crime of robbery, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. During closing ‍​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‍argument at trial, the prosecutor made several comments which attacked the veracity of the appellant. Two examples of those statements are:

“Who is telling the truth? If a witness has shown to have knowingly testified falsely concerning any material matter — and he did, he testified falsely — you have a right ‍​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‍to distrust such a witness.”

“Who is telling the truth in this case? Him? The convicted felon? He is telling you the truth, or Bacallao, Reyes, Cohen, and a police officer? They are telling you the truth in this case. What do they have to gain? What does he have to lose?”

Appellant‘s ‍​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‍counsel objected to these remarks, but at no time did he request a curative instruction or a mistrial.

On appeal, the appellant contends the prosecutory‘s highly prejudicial comments, made in his closing argument, were so improper as to deny him of his right to a fair trial.

We affirm on the authority of Clark v. ‍​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‍State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1978); Nevels v. State, 364 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); State v. Cumbie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1980); cf. Spenkelink v. State, 350 So.2d 85 (Fla. 1977).

Affirmed.