TRYARN WOODARD,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
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.
Tryarn Woodard appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of armed robbery with a firearm and two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, challenging statements made by the prosecutor during rebuttal closing argument. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding the prosecutor's statements were not improper.
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences, concluding that the prosecutor's statements challenged on appeal were not improper.
[1] A prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument is not improper when it suggests that the defense's focus on certain issues is designed to mislead the jury.
[2] Comments made by a prosecutor during closing argument concerning defense counsel and their arguments are generally not improper.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“[T]he essential premise of the prosecutor's argument, that the defense's focus on certain issues was designed to lead the jury down the wrong road, was not improper.”
Establishes that prosecutors may argue the defense's focus on certain issues is designed to mislead the jury, citing Conde v. State.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTryarn Woodard was convicted of two counts of armed robbery with a firearm and two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. The defendant appealed…
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 Prosecutorial Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDON, J.
Tryarn Woodard (“defendant”) appeals his convictions and sentences for two
counts of armed robbery with a firearm and two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. We affirm. The defendant contends reversal is warranted based on several statements made by the prosecutor during the rebuttal closing argument. Based on our review of the statements, we conclude that they were not improper. See Conde v. State, 860 So. 2d 930, 950 n.12 (Fla. 2003) (“[T]he essential premise of the prosecutor’s argument, that the defense’s focus on certain issues was designed to lead the jury down the wrong road, was not improper.”); Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304, 324 n.16 (Fla. 2002) (“[W]e find no error with regard to several of the alleged comments. These include: (1) comments concerning defense counsel and his arguments during closing; (2) comments on the witnesses and evidence and the absence of reasonable doubt; and (3) the use of a baseball analogy by asking the jury to think of itself as baseball players and to keep their eyes on the ball (i.e., the facts and evidence in the case) and not be swayed by “sliders” or “outside fast balls.”).1 Accordingly, we
affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentences.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2002)
- Richemond v. State, 126 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)