HERBERT WATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Herbert Watson appeals his conviction for attempted armed robbery, challenging the trial court's denial of his mistrial motion based on improper prosecutorial closing argument. The appellate court found merit in Watson's argument that the prosecutor engaged in impermissible character assassination and reversed for a new trial.
The trial court erred in denying the mistrial motion. The prosecutor's closing argument was improper because it attacked Watson's character and perpetuated stereotypes about criminal conduct as a 'way of life' in his area, and there was no evidence in the record that Watson invited this argument or that it constituted permissible rebuttal to any argument Watson raised.
[1] A prosecutor's closing argument is improper when it appeals to stereotypes and suggests a defendant's criminal conduct is a "way of life" rather than an isolated incident…
[2] A trial court errs in denying a motion for mistrial when a prosecutor's improper closing argument is not invited by the defense and does not constitute permissible rebutt…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This is not some homeless person who needs help, this is a bad guy who is elevating his crime. He has no respect for the rights of others.”
Prosecutor's improper characterization of the defendant as a 'bad guy' engaged in escalating criminal conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerbert Watson was convicted of attempted armed robbery. During closing argument, the prosecutor characterized Watson as a 'bad guy' with a pattern of…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Improper Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Herbert Watson appeals from his conviction and sentence for attempted armed robbery. He raises three points on appeal. We find merit only in his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for mistrial based on improper closing argument by the state.
During closing argument, the prosecutor made the following remarks:
This is not some homeless person who needs help, this is a bad guy who is elevating his crime. He has no respect for the rights of others. He starts off small, trespassing, loitering, prowling then he goes to ruining somebody’s live-lyhood [sic], running, just grabbing things like it belongs to him.
Now he’s elevated up to armed robbery.... Do we face reality that this gentlemen [sic] is progressively getting worse in his stealing.... All he [sic] done is steal and steal and steal. It’s just absurd to believe he would all of a sudden stop stealing and again steal which is the same thing and used a knife.... He doesn’t get any brownie points for botching it up, brownie points for deciding that he’s going to be a man and move up from trespassing to stealing to armed robbery.
What about the argument this is a way of life, and that the case has to be viewed in this light. That’s absolutely not true. Way of life, what about the American way of life. Do we allow people to loiter and steal and rob and then say, well, you got to understand this is how things are done. The stereotype are [sic] perpetuated, this is the way it’s done. This man sets up a business in this area and we had a juror who said the most important thing was his family and a working person sets up [sic] has a corporation because this particular area this is a way of life. They can [sic] get away with it.
We find nothing in the record that would support the state’s response that appellant either invited this argument or that it constituted permissible rebuttal to appellant’s argument based on his homeless lifestyle. We reverse and remand this case for a new trial on the authority of Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130 (Fla.1985); Ryan v. State, 457 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), review denied, 462 So. 2d 1108 (Fla.1985); and State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DELL, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1985)
- Ryan v. State, 457 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)