Case Name: Orestes RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-09-02
Citations: 493 So. 2d 1067
Docket Number: No. 85-2562
Parties: Orestes RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 493
Pages: 1067–1067

Head Matter:
Orestes RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 85-2562.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 2, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 1, 1986.
Jon W. Burke, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lisa A. Ro-senthal and Margarita M. Febres, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We reject the defendant's contention that he was entitled to the entry of a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his first-degree murder conviction. We also reject his alternative contention that the prosecutor's misstatement of the law during closing argument — "If you believe [the defendant's story] is not credible and if you believe he took the stand and didn't tell the truth, he is guilty of first degree murder" —could only be remedied by the grant of the defendant's request for a mistrial. We conclude instead that the harm of the unquestionably erroneous remark was capable of being cured by an instruction to the jury, and although the instruction given— namely, to disregard the remark — is arguably less than adequate, if the defendant was dissatisfied with the instruction, it was his burden to request a more adequate one.
Affirmed.