Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Urbin v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411 , 418 n. 8 (Fla.1998); Bonifay v. State, 680 So.2d 413 , 418 n. 9 (Fla.1996). 2002See Urbin, 714 So.2d at 418 n. 8. | 3 | 4 |
Downs v. Mooregreen2 sentences2003As this Court has stated in the past, fundamental error "is defined as the type of error which reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Downs v. Moore, 801 So.2d 906, 910-11 (Fla.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2001The Florida Supreme Court has defined fundamental error in closing argument as error that "reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411 , 418 n. 8 (1998) (quoting Kilgore, 688 So.2d at 898 ); see also Downs v. Moore, 801 So.2d 906 (Fla.2001); Morton, 789 So.2d at 329 (quoting Brooks, 762 So.2d at 898 ). | 2 | 2 |
Kilgore v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Absent a contemporaneous objection, appellate courts will not review alleged inappropriate comments made by counsel during closing argument unless the comments constitute fundamental error. [2] Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2001); Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2000); Echevarria v. State, 783 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Jones v. State, 666 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)); see also Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996); Wyatt v. State, 641 So.2d 355 (Fla.1994). 1998The only exception to this blanket procedural bar is where the comments constitute fundamental error, defined as error that "reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Kilgore, 688 So.2d at 898 . | 1 | 2 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Thompson v. State, 88 So.3d 322, 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Cherry v. Mooregreen1 sentence2006For improper comments, made during closing argument, to rise to the level of fundamental error, the comments must be "egregious." See Cherry v. Moore, 829 So. 2d 873, 882 (Fla. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Echevarria v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Absent a contemporaneous objection, appellate courts will not review alleged inappropriate comments made by counsel during closing argument unless the comments constitute fundamental error. [2] Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2001); Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2000); Echevarria v. State, 783 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Jones v. State, 666 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)); see also Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996); Wyatt v. State, 641 So.2d 355 (Fla.1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bonifay v. State
green
2 sentences2005See Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411 , 418 n. 8 (Fla.1998); Bonifay v. State, 680 So.2d 413 , 418 n. 9 (Fla.1996). 1999See Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411 , 418 n. 8 (Fla.1998); Bonifay v. State, 680 So.2d 413 , 418 n. 9 (Fla.1996). | 2 | 1999–2005 |
McDonald v. State
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence2001Absent a contemporaneous objection, appellate courts will not review alleged inappropriate comments made by counsel during closing argument unless the comments constitute fundamental error. [2] Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2001); Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2000); Echevarria v. State, 783 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Jones v. State, 666 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)); see also Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996); Wyatt v. State, 641 So.2d 355 (Fla.1994). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Morton v. State
green
2 sentences2001Absent a contemporaneous objection, appellate courts will not review alleged inappropriate comments made by counsel during closing argument unless the comments constitute fundamental error. [2] Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2001); Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2000); Echevarria v. State, 783 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Jones v. State, 666 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)); see also Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996); Wyatt v. State, 641 So.2d 355 (Fla.1994). 2001The Florida Supreme Court has defined fundamental error in closing argument as error that "reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411 , 418 n. 8 (1998) (quoting Kilgore, 688 So.2d at 898 ); see also Downs v. Moore, 801 So.2d 906 (Fla.2001); Morton, 789 So.2d at 329 (quoting Brooks, 762 So.2d at 898 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Wyatt v. State
green
1 sentence2001Absent a contemporaneous objection, appellate courts will not review alleged inappropriate comments made by counsel during closing argument unless the comments constitute fundamental error. [2] Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2001); Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2000); Echevarria v. State, 783 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Jones v. State, 666 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)); see also Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996); Wyatt v. State, 641 So.2d 355 (Fla.1994). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Brooks v. State
green
2 sentences2001Absent a contemporaneous objection, appellate courts will not review alleged inappropriate comments made by counsel during closing argument unless the comments constitute fundamental error. [2] Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2001); Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2000); Echevarria v. State, 783 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Jones v. State, 666 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)); see also Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996); Wyatt v. State, 641 So.2d 355 (Fla.1994). 2001The Florida Supreme Court has defined fundamental error in closing argument as error that "reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411 , 418 n. 8 (1998) (quoting Kilgore, 688 So.2d at 898 ); see also Downs v. Moore, 801 So.2d 906 (Fla.2001); Morton, 789 So.2d at 329 (quoting Brooks, 762 So.2d at 898 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Pacifico v. State
green
1 sentence1998Reversal is not warranted unless “the error committed was so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.” See, e.g., Street v. State, 636 So.2d 1297 (Fla.1994); Pacifico v. State, 642 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Street v. State
green
1 sentence1998Reversal is not warranted unless “the error committed was so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.” See, e.g., Street v. State, 636 So.2d 1297 (Fla.1994); Pacifico v. State, 642 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.