Opinion ID: 1684614
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for Mistrial Regarding Prosecutor's Slamming of Gun Down on Defense Counsel Table During Closing Argument

Text: During closing argument, the prosecutor displayed the murder weapon and, in a line of argument about the trajectories of the bullets that killed Crawford, stated: Use your common sense. The car is off the ground to begin with. [Pearce has] got to stand up to get over the top of the car, over the windshield, and he has to shoot over there (indicating). The bullet would be going down. And from his location, how could he be right on top to shoot straight through? Physically impossible. Did [Pearce] want him dead? Absolutely. Did [Pearce] shoot him? No. So, where does the gun go, folks? (Indicating.) It goes right there. He then slammed the gun on the defense table. Defense counsel objected and moved for mistrial, arguing that the demonstration was improper and prejudicial. A second defense counsel described the sound made as [l]ouder than a gunshot. The trial court denied the motion but admonished the prosecutor to not repeat the action. On appeal to this Court, Smith argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court erroneously denied his motion for mistrial. Smith asserts that the prosecutor's action prejudiced his defense by injecting fear and emotion into the jury's consideration of the case. A trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be sustained on review absent an abuse of discretion. Ford v. State, 802 So.2d 1121, 1129 (Fla. 2001). The control of prosecutorial comments and conduct in closing argument is also within the trial court's discretion and also will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse. Esty v. State, 642 So.2d 1074, 1079 (Fla.1994). In respect to claims such as this, we respect the vantage point of the trial court, being present in the courtroom, over our reading of a cold record. See Justus v. State, 438 So.2d 358, 366 (Fla.1983). We find no error in the trial court's admonishment of the prosecutor and denial of the motion for new trial.