Legal Opinion

Bethea v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 23, 2006No. 2D04-4036PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

We affirm. We write only to comment that, although not rising to the ■ level of fundamental error, the prosecutor’s closing argument in this case exceeded the bounds of proper argument. Again, we reiterate the admonition of Judge Blue in his specially concurring opinion in Luce v. State, 642 So.2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994): “Trial attorneys must avoid improper argument if the system is to work properly. If attorneys do not recognize improper argument, they should not be in a courtroom. If trial attorneys recognize improper argument and persist in its use, they should not be members of The Florida…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bell v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
  2. Luce v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Johnson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API