Opinion ID: 2772305
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statement by the Prosecutor

Text: During direct examination of the medical examiner, the State offered several autopsy photos of Ruiz and Wells into evidence. Marquardt objected to the photos for being too explicit. The following exchange occurred: PROSECUTOR: Judge, I’d offer R for identification into evidence. COURT: That would be, I think at this point would be State’s— THE CLERK: Fifteen. COURT: Any objection? MARQUARDT: Yes, Your Honor. I don’t like autopsy photos being admitted, they’re too explicit or not. PROSECUTOR: Judge, if he’s got a legal objection, that’s fine. That’s evidence involved in this case as a result of what he did, and that’s something that I have to prove to these members of the jury. - 35 - COURT: As to the objection then, is overruled and that will be State’s 15 in evidence. (Emphasis supplied.) Marquardt contends that the prosecutor improperly expressed his personal belief as to Marquardt’s guilt. While he admits that no objection was made to this comment, Marquardt asserts on appeal that this statement was nevertheless improper and constitutes fundamental error. We hold that the statement by the prosecutor was not improper. Notably, after the prosecutor stated that the autopsy photos were “a result of what [Marquardt] did,” the prosecutor concluded with the statement “and that’s something that I have to prove to these members of the jury.” Thus, the prosecutor actually maintained that he was required to prove that Marquardt was guilty based on the evidence and sought to do so through the introduction of autopsy photos. Autopsy photos are relevant evidence that may be presented during a murder trial. See Henderson v. State, 463 So. 2d 196, 200 (Fla. 1985). Marquardt relies upon three cases as examples of improper prosecutorial statements. However, the statements in these cases were evidently improper and not accompanied by an acknowledgement that the burden of establishing the guilt of the defendant is on the State. See Martinez v. State, 761 So. 2d 1074, 1081 (Fla. 2000) (holding that the prosecutor improperly asked a detective his opinion on the defendant’s guilt, and then commented on the detective’s opinion during closing - 36 - argument); Gore v. State, 719 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla. 1998) (holding that the prosecutor made numerous improper, accusatory, and sarcastic statements to the defendant during cross-examination); State v. Ramos, 579 So. 2d 360, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (holding that the prosecutor intentionally created the impression that the defendant was a suspect in an ongoing narcotics investigation and a kingpin supplier of narcotics). In contrast, the statement by the prosecutor in this case affirmatively recognized that the State has the burden of proof of guilt and did not place in jeopardy Marquardt’s right to be tried solely based on the evidence presented to the jury. Thus, we hold that no fundamental error occurred.