MARK A. HAJOSCH, R.L. LIPTON, INC. D/B/A COMPLETE MEDICAL SERVICES AND ROSAN LEASING, INC., APPELLANTS,

v.

KEARY E. PATTERSON, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Love v. State, 971 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
  …at a homeless shelter, Hogan v. State, 753 So. 2d 570-71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), did not have the type of special relationship with a defendant that would allow the state to comment upon their absence at trial. In a pre-Jackson case, Crowley v. State, 558 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), we reversed a conviction where a prosecutor’s closing argument focused on the defendant’s failure to call any of the people at the scene of his arrest to corroborate his claim that drugs found on the ground were not his. This c…
• Thomas v. State, 726 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
  …). Courts recognize exceptions to this rule where a defendant asserts defenses such as alibi, self-defense, defense of others, or relies on facts that could be elicited from a witness who is not equally available to the state. See Crowley v. State, 558 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Romero v. State, 435 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Comments on the defendant’s failure to call witnesses have also been held not to be reversible error where the defense has indicated or implied that a witness will be called o…
• Austin v. State, 700 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
  …1st DCA), rev. denied, 686 So. 2d 580 (Fla.1996) (stating in dicta that the prosecutor’s closing remarks were an invited, fair reply'to defense counsel’s remarks and did not constitute prejudicial error when considered in context); Crowley v. State, 558 So. 2d 529, 530-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Romero v. State, 435 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We note that the defense was not denying Appellant’s presence or that the communication had occurred. Neither do we interpret the state’s comments as misleading the ju…