Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

747 So. 2d 474

Docket No. 99-417.

Williams v. State

Lonnie M. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 30, 1999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1999-12-30

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2018

7 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“may argue any reasons, if supported by the evidence, why a given witness might or might not be biased in a case, but the prosecutor may not properly argue that a police officer must be believed simply because he is a police officer.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Johnson v. State

“[r]ather than allowing the jury to sort out the truth, the prosecutor attempted to tip the balance by vouching for the veracity of one of the police officers.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Caraballo v. State

Relies on Gentile-Youd v. Guardianship of Rudnick · T.B. v. State · 678 So. 2d 888 - Cisneros v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-12-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*475 James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and A.S. Rogers, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

¶3PETERSON, J.

¶4This is a case of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument in which an objection was made and a motion for mistrial was denied.

¶5The record shows that the state's case hinged upon the jury's acceptance of two police officers' testimony over that of the defendant's. Rather than allowing the jury to sort out the truth, the prosecutor attempted to tip the balance by vouching for the veracity of one of the police officers. Specifically, the closing argument included the following:

He (the police officer) is just doing his job and telling you all the truth. He has no reason to pick out this defendant from anyone else in the street and arrest him for burglary when this defendant wasn't even at the location.

¶6A prosecutor may argue any reasons, if supported by the evidence, why a given witness might or might not be biased in a case, but the prosecutor may not properly argue that a police officer must be believed simply because he is a police officer. See, e.g., Cisneros v. State,678 So.2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Williams v. State,673 So.2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Clark v. State,632 So.2d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), overruled on other grounds, T.B. v. State,669 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

¶7We cannot consider the comment in this case as harmless error because the limited evidence at trial was only the police officers' testimony versus the defendant's testimony. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

¶8W. SHARP, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

/747/so2d/474 · .json · Public domain