Opinion ID: 1133749
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: State's Use of Misleading and Improper Argument

Text: Hannon claims that the State's case was permeated with improper innuendo and argument based on facts not in evidence and that were false. First, Hannon asserts that the following slaughterhouse arguments made by the State during the guilt phase closing argument were not supported by any factual basis: If I had to think of a name for this case, something to summarize what this case is all about, the name I would choose would be The Slaughterhouse. The Slaughterhouse. Because on January 10, 1991, a man sitting in this very courtroom, turned the home of Brandon Snider and Robbie Carter into a slaughterhouse. . . . . Hannon worked at a slaughterhouse. Hannon had access to knives. He had access to knives. He used knives in the past to kill. He testified on the stand that he killed before, killed animals before. However, the record demonstrates that the State's slaughterhouse arguments were supported by the evidence. Specifically, John Ring testified at trial that Hannon stated the following: [Hannon] said that the cops were trying to pin a murder on him, that they had they wanted to pin him because he had worked in a slaughterhouse and he was cutting throats for a living, because that made him a violent person, that they were trying to pin that on him and that he had shot this guy six times. Moreover, at trial Hannon testified that he worked in a slaughterhouse in Okeechobee slaughtering cows, and in Brooksville slaughtering pigs and hogs. Hannon described that he would shock the animals, make an incision in them, and hang them upside down to bleed them. Hannon testified in detail with regard to what occurred on certain days at the slaughterhouse, including that Mondays and Wednesdays were slaughter days when they killed the hogs. Hannon described the different functions related to cutting, specifically that if you were right-handed you would have the knife in your right hand and grab the meat with your left hand. Hannon also testified that he had taken a pork loin to Robbie Carter's house, boned it out, and cut some pork chops. Hannon further testified that during the time January 14 through 16, he had attempted to secure work with Richardson at the slaughterhouse but could not because business was slow. Based upon our review of the record, we determine that there was testimony regarding Hannon's work in the slaughterhouse to support the State's analogy. Accordingly, the trial court's rejection of this claim was proper. Additionally, Hannon asserts that trial counsel's failure to object to the following argument made by the State during closing argument was unreasonable: [S]ometimes you need to make a deal with a sinner in order to get the devil. That's what we did in this case. Ron Richardson did wrong. He was a sinner. We dealt with him to get the devil. Irrespective of whether trial counsel was deficient, Hannon has failed to show prejudice. In Moore v. State, 820 So.2d 199 (Fla. 2002), Moore claimed that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the following remarks made by the prosecutor during the State's guilt and penalty phase arguments: Crime conceived in hell will not have any angels as witnesses. And, ladies and gentleman, as true as that statement is, Grand Park is hell. And that man right there is the devil. . . . Ladies and gentlemen, deals. Yes, ma'am, yes, ma'am, yes, sir, to all of you. I have dealt with [co-defendant 1] and I have dealt with [co-defendant 2]. I did that as an Assistant State Attorney. I did that the best I knew how. But, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes you have to deal with sinners to get the devil. And I would submit to you what the State did was we dealt with this sinner and we dealt with this sinner to get this devil. Id. at 207 (emphasis supplied). This Court concluded: [T]he two isolated references to Moore as the devil in this instance, although ill advised, appear to be less problematic than the pervasive and extensive conduct condemned in Brooks [ v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla.2000),] and Urbin [ v. State, 714 So.2d 411 (Fla.1998)]. Rather, this case appears to be more akin to Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 191 n. 5 (Fla.1997), where this Court held that a prosecutor's isolated comments that defense counsel engaged in cowardly and despicable conduct and that the defendant was a malevolent . . . a brutal rapist and conscienceless murderer was not so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial. Id. at 208. Similar to Moore, the State's comment during closing in the instant case that they made a deal with the sinner to get the devil was not so prejudicial as to undermine our confidence in the case. Accordingly, this claim is also without merit.