Case Name: Hugh Willard MESSEC, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-02-02
Citations: 635 So. 2d 89
Docket Number: No. 92-2138
Parties: Hugh Willard MESSEC, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: HERSEY, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 635
Pages: 89–91

Head Matter:
Hugh Willard MESSEC, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 92-2138.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 2, 1994.
Rehearing Denied May 17, 1994.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and David MePherrin, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Dawn S. Wynn, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
POLEN, Judge.
Defendant appeals a conviction for two counts of armed robbery, two counts of armed kidnapping, and one count of armed burglary, raising nine separate points on appeal. After a consideration of all nine points, we affirm the judgment below; however, defendant's Point II on appeal warrants some additional discussion.
The defendant argues that the trial court should have granted a mistrial based on the prosecutor's comment during closing argument on the defense's failure to call a fingerprint expert. The prosecutor commented as follows:
If there was any question in anybody's mind that Elaine Stranieri was right, you would have a speckled [sic] looking expert here on the defense side of the case saying that it is wrong.
The defendant correctly asserts that error occurred, based on the supreme court's holding in Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181, 188 (Fla.1991). In Jackson, the court held that absent certain exceptions, the state cannot comment on a defendant's failure to produce evidence to refute an element of a crime, because doing so could erroneously lead the jury to believe that the defendant had the burden of producing evidence. These exceptions, which are inapplicable at bar, include those situations where the defendant asserts the defense of alibi, self-defense, and defense of others, relying on facts which could only be elicited from a witness that is not equally available to the state. 575 So.2d at 188. See also Jones v. State, 522 So.2d 981, 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding that comment on the defendant's failure to call an expert witness may have led the jury to believe that the appellant had the burden of introducing evidence to prove his innocence); and Romero v. State, 435 So.2d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (recognizing that reference by the prosecutor to the defendant's failure to call witnesses impinges on both the defendant's constitutional right to remain silent and the requirement that the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).
However, in spite of the state's improper comment on the defendant's failure to call the fingerprint expert, any such error was harmless. In Romero, 435 So.2d at 319, this court recognized that where there is ample evidence of a defendant's guilt, a prosecutor's comment on the defendant's failure to call an expert witness, may be rendered harmless. In State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986), the supreme court recognized that the harmless error test can be applied to a prosecutor's comments on the defendant's failure to testify only if the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict. Application of this test requires an examination of the entire record by the appellate court, including an examination of the permissible evidence on which the jury could have relied, as well as an examination of the impermissible evidence that could have influenced the jury. Id. at 1129. An examination of the record at bar reveals substantial permissible evidence implicating the defendant. First, a fingerprint lifted from the scene was positively identified as the defendant's. In addition, the defendant was identified by one of the victims, as well as by his accomplice. The ample evidence placing the defendant at the scene of the crime leads to the conclusion that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence rendered below.
HERSEY, J., concurs.
PARIENTE, J., dissents with opinion.
. Elaine Stranieri was the state's fingerprint expert.