VARSAM v. STATE (2021)

Philip Varsam appeals his convictions for leaving the scene of a crash involving death and driving under the influence manslaughter (impairment). We affirm on all issues.

According to Varsam, the State engaged in multiple incidents of prosecutorial misconduct at trial: 1) by misrepresenting evidence to the jury during closing argument when it mentioned the victim's hair embedded in Varsam's vehicle's windshield; 2) by referencing other notorious cases; 3) in its redirect examination of a nightclub waitress; 4) during Varsam's cross-examination and closing argument; and 5) multiple unobjected-to comments during closing argument that allegedly denigrated the defense.

We agree that the State made multiple inappropriate statements during closing argument. At the same time, we do not find the statements rise to the level of fundamental error. See Robinson v. State, 211 So. 3d 59, 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (agreeing the state made several inappropriate comments during closing but concluding the “comments, both singularly and collectively, did not rise to the level of fundamental error”). Thus, we affirm but write only to warn the State—and specifically the prosecuting attorney—that certain statements made during closing argument were improper.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

May, Forst and Kuntz, JJ., concur.