ROBERT EUGENE KOEHLER
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.
Koehler appealed his conviction, challenging prosecutorial comments made during closing argument. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Koehler waived his objection by failing to contemporaneously object and move for mistrial.
Koehler waived his objection to the prosecutorial comments by failing to contemporaneously object and move for mistrial. The comments did not constitute fundamental error warranting appellate reversal.
[1] A defendant waives objection to improper prosecutorial comments made during closing argument by failing to contemporaneously object and move for mistrial during the trial…
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“defendant waives objection to improper prosecutorial comments by failing to contemporaneously object and move for mistrial during closing argument”
Establishes that Koehler's failure to object at trial waived the issue on appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Eugene Koehler was convicted in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. During the prosecutor's closing argument, allegedly improper comments were mad…
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 Contemporaneous Objection Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 1980) (holding that defendant waives objection to improper prosecutorial comments by failing to contemporaneously object and move for mistrial during closing argument); Kilgore v. State, 688 So. 2d 895, 898 (Fla. 1996) (describing fundamental error exception to preservation); Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186, 191 n.5 (Fla. 1997) (noting that denigrating comments describing defendant as “brutal rapist and conscienceless murderer” were not so prejudicial as to constitute fundamental error).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Oba Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1997)
- Kilgore v. State, 688 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1996)
- State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1980)