Case ID: so2d_786/html/0674-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anthony RUSSO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D00-1915.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    June 13, 2001.
    
      Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Shannon M. Mahoney, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Thomas C. Mielke, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauder-dale, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We find no error, much less a fundamental one, in the trial court’s reinstruction of the jury. Using the Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal), the trial court reinstructed the jury as to the elements of each count and the lesser included offenses. See Perriman v. State, 731 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Fla.1999).

As to the closing argument, there was no timely objection to two comments that might have been made under Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29, 37-40 (Fla. 2000). Where an objection was made, we find not a comment on the right to remain silent, but a reference to appellant’s out-of-court statement to a detective. In this case, the prosecutor was entitled to forcefully argue appellant’s credibility, especially since one of the charges was based on appellant giving a false name to the police at the time of his arrest. See Shellito v. State, 701 So.2d 837, 841-42 (Fla.1997).

Affirmed.

STONE, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.