Restrepo v. State

Alvaro RESTREPO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 10, 1989.

Rehearing Denied December 13, 1989.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-10-10

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 2007

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[i]t was improper closing argument for the prosecutor to state, without support in the record, that a witness was absent `maybe because he is afraid to testify against this man.'”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 967 So. 2d 951 - McKenney v. State

Relies on 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-10-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Melvyn Kessler, Miami, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Yvette Rhodes Prescott, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and COPE, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5It was improper closing argument for the prosecutor to state, without support in the record, that a witness was absent "maybe because he is afraid to testify against this man." Although the defense objection should have been sustained, we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio,491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). No reversible error has been shown with respect to the other points on appeal.

¶6Affirmed.