Opinion ID: 1697707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State's Alleged Improper Argument

Text: Next, Bigham argues that it was improper for the prosecution to argue in closing that Bigham had sexually violated the victim. Bigham points out that the trial court had granted a judgment of acquittal for that crime. The prosecution asserted during its closing that Bigham had killed Lulu at the same time that he was having sex with her in the woods: Ms. Park: ... He pulled off the shorts inside out and the panties, [Lulu] is no longer fighting. He puts on the black condom. He then sexually assaulted her vaginally, anally, she's no longer fighting. She's dead. Mr. Unruh: Objection, Judge.... .... ... We have the State arguing a sexual assault occurred, there are only felony murder. (sic) They brought it up during my closing, the Court previously ruled on these things.... .... Ms. Park: At the point where he is wearing a black condom and having sex with her, she's no longer fighting, she's dead. There are no signs of trauma, no signs of tearing, she's not struggling any longer. You wouldn't expect to see that.... Mr. Unruh: Object, Your Honor, facts not in evidence.... .... ... The State has commented on things that were not in evidence. No expert testified that she was dead at the time of the sexual act. There was no direct evidence by any expert witness of that. They are commenting on things that are not in evidence. The Court: That's their theory. Overrule the objection. Because the trial court overruled the objection, our first task is to determine whether the argument was improper. If the argument was improper, we must then determine if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343, 360 (Fla.2001) (citing State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986)). In determining whether an error is harmless, the court must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the comment did not contribute to the guilty verdict. Further, in making this determination, the burden is on the State, as the beneficiary of the error, to demonstrate that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d at 1135. We have long held that argument on matters outside the evidence is improper. See Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So.2d 798, 803 (Fla.1986). Even though the trial court had granted a judgment of acquittal on the charge of sexual battery, the trial court overruled the objection on the basis that it was the State's theory that Lulu was probably dead at the time the sex act occurred. We agree that the State's theory could be inferred from evidence that suggested that the death by strangulation could have occurred at virtually the same time that the sexual relations took place. Therefore, the prosecutor's argument does not appear to have been improper. In other words, we agree with the trial court that the State was doing little more than stating its theory of the case that the choking of the victim by Bigham took place at virtually the same time as the sex. Even if the comments were improper, and the trial court should have sustained the objection, we find that there is no reasonable possibility the comments complained of could have contributed to the verdict. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d at 1135; cf. Muhammad, 782 So.2d at 360 (holding the prosecutor went beyond simply commenting on the evidence and the record as a whole showed there was no reasonable possibility that the improper argument contributed to the jury's guilty verdict). Accordingly, Bigham is not entitled to a new trial based upon this claim.