Opinion ID: 1096608
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Prosecutorial Comments During Opening and Closing Arguments

Text: In his sixth claim, Conde asserts that the trial court erred in failing to limit certain prosecutorial comments made in opening and closing arguments that compromised Conde's right to a fair trial by improperly conditioning the jury to view him as a serial murderer. Because the control of prosecutorial comments to the jury is within the trial court's discretion, we review this issue under an abuse of discretion standard. Esty v. State, 642 So.2d 1074, 1079 (Fla.1994). With the exception of a single objection to the State's use of the term the Tamiami strangler, Conde did not object to the prosecutorial comments that he now challenges. Thus, fundamental error review applies with regard to those comments. The overall theme of the prosecutor's arguments was that Conde strangled Dunn in the same manner as he had the other five victims. The prosecutor did not argue to the jury that they should convict on the basis of Conde's status as a serial killer but, rather, specifically told the jury in closing argument that evidence of the collateral murders was admitted for the limited purpose of proving a premeditated plan. [11] This is permissible argument on the basis of Williams rule evidence, and thus, we do not find error, let alone fundamental error. As for the remaining comments on matters other than the collateral murders, we similarly find no fundamental error. [12] Lastly, regarding the State's use of the terms the strangler and the Tamiami strangler, the record reflects that Conde objected once to the use of the term the Tamiami strangler and did so after three prior strangler references. It appears from the record that the specific statement objected to, that each and every one of the victims of the Tamiami strangler were found to have [certain identical] fibers on them, was a general reference to the perpetrator of these multiple crimes and concerned the police investigation of the six murders. In view of this isolated usage, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Conde's objection to this statement. We also find any error in denying the objection to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.