RUSSO v. STATE (2001)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fourth District.

Anthony RUSSO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D00-1915.

Decided: June 13, 2001

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Shannon M. Mahoney, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Thomas C. Mielke, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

We find no error, much less a fundamental one, in the trial court's reinstruction of the jury. Using the Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal), the trial court reinstructed the jury as to the elements of each count and the lesser included offenses. See Perriman v. State, 731 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Fla.1999).

As to the closing argument, there was no timely objection to two comments that might have been made under Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29, 37-40 (Fla.2000). Where an objection was made, we find not a comment on the right to remain silent, but a reference to appellant's out-of-court statement to a detective. In this case, the prosecutor was entitled to forcefully argue appellant's credibility, especially since one of the charges was based on appellant giving a false name to the police at the time of his arrest. See Shellito v. State, 701 So.2d 837, 841-42 (Fla.1997).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

STONE, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network