Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Tryarn WOODARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Tryarn Woodard (“defendant”) appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of armed robbery with a firearm and two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. We affirm.
The defendant contends reversal is warranted based on several statements made by the prosecutor during the rebuttal closing argument. Based on our review of the statements, we conclude that they were not improper. See Conde v. State, 860 So. 2d 930, 950 n.12 (Fla. 2003) (“[T]he essential premise of the prosecutor's argument, that the defense's focus on certain issues was designed to lead the jury down the wrong road, was not improper.”); Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304, 324 n.16 (Fla. 2002) (“[W]e find no error with regard to several of the alleged comments. These include: (1) comments concerning defense counsel and his arguments during closing; (2) comments on the witnesses and evidence and the absence of reasonable doubt; and (3) the use of a baseball analogy by asking the jury to think of itself as baseball players and to keep their eyes on the ball (i.e., the facts and evidence in the case) and not be swayed by “sliders” or “outside fast balls.”).1 Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences.
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. As we have concluded that the complained-of statements were not improper, we do not need to distinguish between the comments that were preserved for appellate review and those that were not. See Richemond v. State, 126 So. 3d 281, 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“Statements made during closing argument are preserved for appeal by making a contemporaneous objection, which if sustained, must be followed by a request for a curative instruction or a motion for mistrial.”); Pedroza v. State, 773 So. 2d 639, 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (“If a party makes a contemporaneous objection to an improper comment which is sustained by the trial judge, the party must move for mistrial if he or she wishes to preserve the objection for appellate review.”).
HENDON, J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 3D18-1053
Decided: November 06, 2019
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)