Case ID: so2d_576/html/1357-01.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

Christopher McPHERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 90-1194.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 2, 1991.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Valerie Jonas, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Roberta G. Mandel, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL, JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Christopher McPherson appeals from a judgment of conviction for assault. For the following reason, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

In his closing argument, the prosecutor referred to the defendant as a “madman.” He further argued that, because defendant’s counsel was “manipulative,” she was able to extract erroneous or misleading statements from the victim during a deposition. Based upon Alvarez v. State, 574 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), in which we reversed a conviction and ordered a new trial based upon virtually identical improper remarks made by the same prosecutor in closing argument, we reverse.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
      
      . Because we reverse on the grounds of prosecu-torial misconduct, we do not reach the issues presented by the jury selection process.