NEWELL v. STATE (2023)

AFFIRMED. See State v. Wilson, 686 So. 2d 569, 570 (Fla. 1996) (holding that “in view of the fact that the trial judge gave the standard jury instruction on reasonable doubt at the close of the evidence and told the jury that it must follow the standard instructions, we cannot say that error was committed.”); McArthur v. State, 801 So. 2d 1037, 1040 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“In order to determine whether improper remarks constitute reversible error, they should be reviewed within the context of the closing argument as a whole and considered cumulatively within the context of the entire record.”); Morris v. State, 233 So. 3d 438, 448 (Fla. 2018) (“Morris asserts that the prosecutor impermissibly shifted the burden during closing argument when he stated to the jury that Ashley had no motive to lie and that ‘there's been no suggested motive to her cross-examination.’ However, even if the issue was preserved, there was no error because the State's argument was an invited response in rebuttal to Morris’ attack on Ashley's credibility.”).¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   This case was transferred from the Fifth District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023.

PER CURIAM.

NARDELLA, WOZNIAK and MIZE, JJ., concur.