Lumpkin v. State

Our affirmance is based upon a harmless error analysis. The prosecutor’s error was so basic it was elementary.1 Her closing argument improperly attempted to shift the burden of proof. Relying on broad language in Henry v. State, 483 So.2d 860 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), the prosecutor asserted her comment was not improper. That opinion contained no facts or analysis and was the equivalent of citing a head note as legal authority. A modicum of research would have revealed a plethora of case law disapproving of the prosecutor’s comment.2 See Ealy v. State, 915 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Williams…