Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

776 So. 2d 1081

Pino v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 7, 2001

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2001-02-07

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 2002

5 state decisions

Relies on 766 So. 2d 1010 - Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-02-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The defendant, Alberto Lazaro Pino, appeals from his conviction for vehicular homicide. We affirm.

¶2During closing argument, the prosecutor stated that the defendant was a “liar,” that the defendant had told “lies,” and that the defendant had “lied.” The defendant contends that these arguments were improper. We disagree. In Murphy v. International Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010, 1028-29 (Fla.2000), the Florida Supreme Court held:

it is not improper for counsel to state during closing argument that a witness “lied” or is a “liar,” provided such characterizations are supported by the record. If the evidence supports such a characterization, counsel is not imper-missibly stating a personal opinion about the credibility of a witness, but is instead submitting to the jury a conclusion that reasonably may be drawn from the evidence.

¶3(citations and footnote omitted). After carefully reviewing the record, we find that prosecutor’s characterizations of the defendant are supported by the record.

¶4The remaining contention raised by the defendant lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm.

¶5Affirmed.

/776/so2d/1081 · .json · Public domain