DAVIS
v.
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.
In this DUI case, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, rejecting the defendant's argument that prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument required reversal. The prosecution's comments about the defendant's behavior on video and inferences about guilt were proper responses to defense speculation and did not constitute improper comment on the right to remain silent.
The prosecutor's closing argument did not constitute reversible error. The prosecutor was commenting on the defendant's actual behavior captured on video and making reasonable inferences therefrom, not improperly commenting on the defendant's right to remain silent or shifting the burden of proof.
[1] A prosecutor's comment during closing argument is not grounds for reversal if it is a legitimate response to defense arguments or theories not supported by evidence.
[2] A prosecutor may comment on a defendant's behavior observed on video evidence during closing arguments.
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“The jury is instructed not to speculate on matters outside of the evidence. Nevertheless, judges often sustain objections made by the defense or are reversed for failing to sustain such objections. I believe these are legitimate statements by prosecutors in response to arguments put forth by the defense during trial and/or during argument.”
Establishes that prosecutors may properly respond to unsupported defense theories by pointing out lack of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 27, 2008, Davis was arrested for DUI after leaving Club Safari at 3:00 a.m. Video evidence showed Davis initially claiming she was not dri…
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 Comment On Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
Palm Beach, FL 33401.
PER CURIAM.
The lower court's decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
SMITH AND HOY, JJ. concur. RAPP, J. concurs with opinion.
I agree with the majority opinion that the comment by the prosecutor during closing argument does not require reversal as argued by the defense. Although I agree with their conclusion, my rationale is different.
The defense frequently questions witnesses and argues theories of defense, which are not supported by the evidence. They argue "this or that" may possibly be an explanation of some fact asserted by the prosecutor. It is equally commonplace for defense lawyers to cry foul when prosecutors respond to this type of argument by pointing out that there was absolutely no evidence presented at trial for "this or that." The jury is instructed not to speculate on matters outside of the evidence. Nevertheless, judges often sustain objections made by the defense or are reversed for failing to sustain such objections. I believe these are legitimate statements by prosecutors in response to arguments put forth by the defense during trial and/or during argument. Typically the objection made is that the prosecutor's argument is an improper comment on the defendant's right to remain silent, which improperly shifts the burden of proof from the state to the defense.
Here, the defense made such an objection, which was sustained by the judge. Thereafter, the defense moved for a mistrial, which was denied by the judge. The defense declined a curative instruction. I do not believe that the objection should have been sustained. The transcript reveals that the prosecutor was not even talking about a lack of evidence to support a speculative theory put forward by the defense. She was clearly talking about the defendant's behavior, which the jury saw on video. To illustrate, the prosecutor stated, "That's what happened on December 27, 2008, the defendant played games. Why did she play games? Because she knew she had been drinking. It was 3:00 a.m. She was leaving club Safari and almost caused a collision." "At this point you heard throughout the video, and I urge you to watch the video again, she scoots over to the center console and tells Officer Hanton, 'I wasn't driving. I'm not driving." From the get go, she was playing games. "She was told to get out of the car by another officer, and she doesn't want to because she knows, 'I've been drinking."
The closing statement goes on in this vein and the prosecutor argues that a sober person would not behave this way. She maintains that a person who had not been drinking would probably say, "Look, I'm the designated driver. I'm just taking my brother home; it was a mistake. I haven't been drinking. Sure, I'll do the field sobriety tests." The video was described as showing Davis' inability to stand or walk without leaning against the car for support. It was at this point that that the objection was made and sustained. It should have been overruled.