Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

436 So. 2d 232

Docket No. 82-2113.

Shepherd v. State

Richard Wayne SHEPHERD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 5, 1983.

Rehearing Denied September 7, 1983.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-07-05

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1985

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We've heard a lot of allegations with respect to a defense and I must confess to you, when I sat down to prepare my closing remarks, I had a lot of difficulty in trying to figure out exactly what the defense was going to be, because, frankly, for my purpose, I haven't heard any.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 479 So. 2d 106 - State v. Sheperd

“of being interpreted by the jury as referring to the defendant's failure to testify, we hold that a prosecutorial comment in reference to the defense generally as opposed to the defendant individually cannot be”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 479 So. 2d 106 - State v. Sheperd

Relies on 369 So. 2d 943 - David v. State · Cunningham v. State · Fernandez v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-07-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Gelber, Glass, Durant, Canal & Darby, John H. Lipinski, Miami, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before HUBBART, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Pursuant to jury verdict, the defendant was adjudged guilty of the crimes of sexual battery, burglary, and attempted second degree murder. He appeals the adjudication of guilt and attendant sentences contending that the prosecution improperly commented during closing argument as follows:

We've heard a lot of allegations with respect to a defense and I must confess to you, when I sat down to prepare my closing remarks, I had a lot of difficulty in trying to figure out exactly what the defense was going to be, because, frankly, for my purpose, I haven't heard any.

¶6This comment met with an immediate objection and a motion for mistrial, which motion was denied.

¶7We reverse because the prosecutor's comment was clearly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as referring to the defendant's failure to testify. David v. State,369 So.2d 943 (Fla. 1979); Fernandez v. State,427 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Cunningham v. State,404 So.2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

¶8Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

/436/so2d/232 · .json · Public domain