Opinion ID: 1882336
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Prosecutorial Comments Made During Closing

Text: In issue four, Rose argues the prosecutor engaged in an improper closing argument in commenting on what he believed the victim might have said. While we have cautioned against arguments imagining what may have happened to a victim, we have held that wide latitude is afforded counsel during arguments. See Moore v. State, 701 So.2d 545, 550 (Fla. 1997). In order to get a new trial on this ground, the comments must either deprive the defendant of a fair and impartial trial ... or be so inflammatory that they might have influenced the jury to reach a more severe verdict than that it would have otherwise. Spencer v. State, 645 So.2d 377, 383 (Fla.1994). Still, it is within the trial court's discretion to control the comments made to a jury and the court's decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. See id. At closing, the prosecutor commented: So you know who the last person to see Lisa alive was, as shown by the evidence? James Franklin Rose. And he takes this little eight-year-old girl in his van to somewhere. And don't you know, drawing on your own human experience and common sense, she probably wanted to know where are we going? My mother's at the bowling alley. (Record on Appeal, Vol. XIV, at 1410-11). Defense counsel immediately objected and the trial court sustained the objection. Trial counsel did not seek a mistrial. We conclude these comments are not so egregious or fundamental as to warrant reversal. We conclude the prosecutor's remarks were harmless. See James v. State, 695 So.2d 1229, 1234 (Fla.1997) ([W]e conclude that the prosecutor's poorly phrased comment was a harmless error as there is no possibility that it contributed to the outcome in this case.). In addition, this claim is procedurally barred for Rose's failure to move for a mistrial after the trial court sustained the objection. See James, 695 So.2d at 1234 (The issue is preserved if the defendant makes a timely specific objection and moves for a mistrial.) (emphasis added). This procedural rule is intended to require counsel to act if she believes the error truly merits an end to the trial. Counsel did not act here.