CEDRICK E. JONES, 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.
Affirmed conviction for burglary despite prosecutor's improper bolstering of expert witness credibility, finding harmless error given overwhelming fingerprint and admissions evidence.
Prosecutor's statement that a fingerprint expert was "very credible" constitutes improper bolstering but is harmless error when overwhelming evidence of guilt exists.
[1] Prosecutor's statement that a witness is "very credible" or "credible" constitutes improper bolstering of witness credibility, but such error is harmless when overwhelmin…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[H]e is my expert, and he is very credible.”
Prosecutor's statement during closing argument regarding the fingerprint expert, which the defense objected to as improper bolstering.
Appellant's fingerprints were found on the victim's sliding glass door and on a vehicle seen leaving the driveway; appellant admitted to police he pos…
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 Bolstering Of Witness Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals his conviction of burglary of a dwelling. Testimony during trial revealed that appellant’s fingerprints were found on the sliding glass door to the victim’s house. His fingerprints were also found on the vehicle that the victim saw pulling out from her driveway as she returned home. Additionally, appellant admitted to officers that he had the key to the vehicle and possession of the vehicle at the date and time the burglary occurred. During closing argument, the prosecutor referred to the testimony of the deputy who lifted the fingerprints and stated, “[H]e is my expert, and he is very credible.” The defense objected due to improper bolstering, and the trial court overruled the objection. We find this was error, but the error was harmless as there was no reasonable possibility, under the specific facts of this case, that the comment influenced the verdict. See King v. State, 623 So.2d 486, 488 (Fla.1993); Buckner v. State, 689 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (finding error harmless where the state told the jury it would find the police officer “very credible” and in closing stated that the officer testified “truthfully” and put his “credibility on the line”). We note, however, that this type of comment comes perilously close to being the basis for reversal, and it is only under the specific facts of this case that we find the error to be harmless. We caution that these types of comments should be avoided.
Affirmed.
MAY, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bullington v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- King v. State, 623 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Hawke Distrib., Inc. v. Nuevo SOL P'rs, Inc., 689 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Captain Buckner v. State, 689 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)