Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

493 So. 2d 1067

493 So.2d 1067

11 Fla.L.Weekly 1888

Docket No. 85-2562.

Rodriguez v. State

Orestes RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 2, 1986.

Rehearing Denied October 1, 1986.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-09-02

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-09-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2004

7 state decisions

40198619902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Jon W. Burke, Miami, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lisa A. Rosenthal and Margarita M. Febres, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5We reject the defendant's contention that he was entitled to the entry of a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his first-degree murder conviction. We also reject his alternative contention that the prosecutor's misstatement of the law during closing argument — "If you believe [the defendant's story] is not credible and if you believe he took the stand and didn't tell the truth, he is guilty of first degree murder" — could only be remedied by the grant of the defendant's request for a mistrial. We conclude instead that the harm of the unquestionably erroneous remark was capable of being cured by an instruction to the jury, and although the instruction given — namely, to disregard the remark — is arguably less than adequate, if the defendant was dissatisfied with the instruction, it was his burden to request a more adequate one.

¶6Affirmed.

/493/so2d/1067 · .json · Public domain