Case Name: Terry GLISPY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-11-01
Citations: 940 So. 2d 608
Docket Number: No. 4D05-1188
Parties: Terry GLISPY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: STEVENSON, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 940
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
Terry GLISPY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D05-1188.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov. 1, 2006.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
WARNER, J.
Appellant challenges his conviction for driving a motor vehicle with a revoked license, claiming that the prosecutor made two prejudicial comments in closing argument. First, the prosecutor told the jury that the state's sole witness, a state trooper, was being truthful and reliable. The comment was in response to the defense's attack on the trooper's credibili ty, and the prosecutor's comment did not place the prestige of the government behind the trooper or comment on matters outside the record. See Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943, 953 (Fla.2004). Therefore, we find no error. As to the second comment, which the defense states was a comment implicating the right to remain silent, we do not view it in the same light. The prosecutor started to say, "And there's no evidence before you to contradict " before being cut off by a defense objection. Immediately prior to this, the prosecutor was again talking about the trooper's actions and credibility. We find it questionable that this was a comment on silence, but even if it was, we conclude that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986).
STEVENSON, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur.