golden rule in Florida

2022The trial court denied the motion. 3 Our Review Although the most common golden rule violation in criminal cases may occur when the state asks jurors “to place themselves in the victim’s position,” Mosley v. State, 46 So. 3d 510, 520 (Fla. 2009) (emphasis added), a golden rule violation may occur anytime a party asks jurors to place themselves in any party’s position to decide the case on the basis of personal bias, rather than on the evidence.

2018We do not agree. “‘Golden rule’ arguments are arguments that invite the jurors to place themselves in the victim’s position during the crime and imagine the victim’s suffering.” Mosley v. State, 46 So. 3d 510, 520 (Fla. 2009).1 Closely related is the 1 It is worth noting that the concept of a “golden rule” violation was originally limited in application to civil trials where the plaintiff invited jurors to place themselves in the shoes of the plaintiff and asked jurors to award an amount of damages they (the jurors) would want if they suffered the same injuries suffered by plaintiff.

2022A golden rule argument is an “argument[] that invite[s] the jurors to place themselves in the victim’s position and ‘imagine the victim’s final pain, terror and defenselessness.’ ” Merck, 975 So. 2d at 1062 (quoting Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130, 133 (Fla. 1985)).

2022“Golden rule arguments are arguments that invite the jurors to place themselves in the victim’s position and ‘imagine the victim’s final pain, terror and defenselessness.’ ” Merck, 975 So. 2d at 1062 (quoting Bertolotti, 476 So. 2d at 133 ).

2018See, e.g., Bullock v. Branch, 130 So. 2d 74, 75-76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961) (disapproved on other grounds by Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Syss., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)) (first reported Florida case addressing “golden rule” violation, where plaintiff’s counsel argued to the jury: “[T]he court will instruct you that [plaintiff is] entitled to compensation at your hand at such figure that you think is right for his pain suffering and for his discomfort, not only in the past but in the further.

1969The leading case on the so-called golden rule argument is Bullock v. Branch, Fla. App. 1961, 130 So.2d 74 .

2025Braddy, 111 So. 3d at 842-43 (emphasis added).

2022As we have explained, “The State can comment on the crime as long as the comments ‘are based on evidence introduced at trial and are relevant to the circumstances of [the crime] or relevant aggravators,’ but may not ‘cross the line by inviting the jurors to place themselves in the position of the victim.’ ” Braddy, 111 So. 3d at 842 (quoting Mosley v. State, 46 So. 3d 510, 521 (Fla. 2009)).

2017See Tremblay v. Santa Rosa County, 688 So.2d 985, 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

2011A golden rule argument is improper because it depends upon "inflaming the passions of the jury and inducing fear and self interest.” Bocher v. Glass, 874 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); see also Tremblay v. Santa Rosa County, 688 So.2d 985, 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

2022See, e.g., Shaffer v. Ward, 510 So. 3d 602 , 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“The ‘Golden Rule’ argument urges the jury to place themselves in a party’s position to allow recovery as they would want were they the party. … Such an argument is improper because it encourages the jury to depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias, rather than on the evidence.”) (internal citations omitted); Miku v. Olmen, 193 So. 2d 17, 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) (golden rule argument is improper whether employed by plaintiff or defendant), receded from on other grounds, Clevelan

1996Appellant argues correctly that our case of Miku v. Olmen, 193 So.2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 232 (Fla.1967), adopts a principle that golden rule argument is per se prejudicial and requires *16 a new trial.

2022A golden rule argument is an “argument[] that invite[s] the jurors to place themselves in the victim’s position and ‘imagine the victim’s final pain, terror and defenselessness.’ ” Merck, 975 So. 2d at 1062 (quoting Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130, 133 (Fla. 1985)).

2022“Golden rule arguments are arguments that invite the jurors to place themselves in the victim’s position and ‘imagine the victim’s final pain, terror and defenselessness.’ ” Merck, 975 So. 2d at 1062 (quoting Bertolotti, 476 So. 2d at 133 ).

2019Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 812 (Fla. 2002).

2013The comment at issue in this case is similar to the comment in Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla.2002).

2022See, e.g., Shaffer v. Ward, 510 So. 3d 602 , 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“The ‘Golden Rule’ argument urges the jury to place themselves in a party’s position to allow recovery as they would want were they the party. … Such an argument is improper because it encourages the jury to depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias, rather than on the evidence.”) (internal citations omitted); Miku v. Olmen, 193 So. 2d 17, 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) (golden rule argument is improper whether employed by plaintiff or defendant), receded from on other grounds, Clevelan

1997The trial court entered its order prior to the decision in Cleveland Clinic Florida v. Wilson, 685 So.2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), in which we held that golden rule arguments are not per se reversible errors.

2018See, e.g., Bullock v. Branch, 130 So. 2d 74, 75-76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961) (disapproved on other grounds by Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Syss., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)) (first reported Florida case addressing “golden rule” violation, where plaintiff’s counsel argued to the jury: “[T]he court will instruct you that 8 concept that closing argument “must not be used to inflame the minds and passions of the jurors so that their verdict reflects an emotional response to the crime or the defendant rather than the logical analysis of the evidence in light of the applicable law.” Lewis v. State, 780

2018See, e.g., Bullock v. Branch, 130 So. 2d 74, 75-76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961) (disapproved on other grounds by Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Syss., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)) (first reported Florida case addressing “golden rule” violation, where plaintiff’s counsel argued to the jury: “[T]he court will instruct you that [plaintiff is] entitled to compensation at your hand at such figure that you think is right for his pain suffering and for his discomfort, not only in the past but in the further.

2018See, e.g., Bullock v. Branch, 130 So. 2d 74, 75-76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961) (disapproved on other grounds by Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Syss., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)) (first reported Florida case addressing “golden rule” violation, where plaintiff’s counsel argued to the jury: “[T]he court will instruct you that 8 concept that closing argument “must not be used to inflame the minds and passions of the jurors so that their verdict reflects an emotional response to the crime or the defendant rather than the logical analysis of the evidence in light of the applicable law.” Lewis v. State, 780

2018See, e.g., Cumbie v. State, 378 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (quashed on other grounds by State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1980)) (holding it was a golden rule violation for state to argue to jury in sexual battery case: “Now, we men often times can't appreciate the assault on a body that a woman has to undergo when she is being raped or attempted to be raped, but I think we can think about it and kind of try to imagine, if you think of yourself in a similar situation . . . .”) Nevertheless, most of the decisions condemning arguments as golden rule 8 concept that closing argument “must n

2018See, e.g., Cumbie v. State, 378 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (quashed on other grounds by State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1980)) (holding it was a golden rule violation for state to argue to jury in sexual battery case: “Now, we men often times can't appreciate the assault on a body that a woman has to undergo when she is being raped or attempted to be raped, but I think we can think about it and kind of try to imagine, if you think of yourself in a similar situation . . . .”) Nevertheless, most of the decisions condemning arguments as golden rule violations in the criminal trial contex

2018See, e.g., Cumbie v. State, 378 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (quashed on other grounds by State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1980)) (holding it was a golden rule violation for state to argue to jury in sexual battery case: “Now, we men often times can't appreciate the assault on a body that a woman has to undergo when she is being raped or attempted to be raped, but I think we can think about it and kind of try to imagine, if you think of yourself in a similar situation . . . .”) Nevertheless, most of the decisions condemning arguments as golden rule 8 concept that closing argument “must n

2018See, e.g., Cumbie v. State, 378 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (quashed on other grounds by State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1980)) (holding it was a golden rule violation for state to argue to jury in sexual battery case: “Now, we men often times can't appreciate the assault on a body that a woman has to undergo when she is being raped or attempted to be raped, but I think we can think about it and kind of try to imagine, if you think of yourself in a similar situation . . . .”) Nevertheless, most of the decisions condemning arguments as golden rule violations in the criminal trial contex

2018See, e.g., Cumbie v. State, 378 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (quashed on other grounds by State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1980)) (holding it was a golden rule violation for state to argue to jury in sexual battery case: “Now, we men often times can't appreciate the assault on a body that a woman has to undergo when she is being raped or attempted to be raped, but I think we can think about it and kind of try to imagine, if you think of yourself in a similar situation . . . .”) Nevertheless, most of the decisions condemning arguments as golden rule 8 concept that closing argument “must n

2017Signed over his entire life.”); Davis v. State, 604 So.2d 794, 797 (Fla. 1992) (Golden Rule violation where prosecutor argued: “[I]t might not be a bad idea to look at [the knife] and think about what it would feel like if it went two inches into your neck.”); Garron v. State, 528 So.2d 353, 358-59 (Fla. 1988) (Golden Rule violation where prosecutor argued: “Imagine the anguish and pain that [the victim] felt as she was shot in the chest and [dragged] herself from the bathroom into the bedroom where she expired.”); Bertolotti, 476 So.2d at 133 (Fla. 1985) (Golden Rule violation where prosecuto

2002"In general, a `golden rule' argument encompasses requests that the jurors place themselves in the victim's position, that they imagine the victim's pain and terror, or that they imagine that their relative was the victim." Williams v. State, 689 So.2d 393, 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); see also Davis v. State, 604 So.2d 794, 797 (Fla. *813 1992); Bertolotti v. State, 476 So.2d 130, 133 (Fla.1985).

1992Simmonds v. Lowery, 563 So.2d 183, 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Cummins Alabama, Inc. v. Allbritten, 548 So.2d 258, 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Schreidell v. Shoter, 500 So.2d 228, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1987).

1990"A golden rule argument suggests to jurors that they put themselves in the shoes of one of the parties, and is impermissible because it encourages the jurors to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence." Cummins Alabama, Inc. v. Allbritten, 548 So.2d 258, 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

1990"To be impermissible, the argument must strike at that sensitive area of financial responsibility and hypothetically request the jury to consider how much they would wish to receive in a similar situation." Shaffer v. Ward, 510 So.2d 602, 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

1989See Shaffer v. Ward, 510 So.2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (trial court improperly granted new trial on basis that statements constituted golden rule argument where statements were merely an attempt to ask the jury to use their common, everyday experience in deciding the case).

2012Williamson, 994 So.2d at 1006 (citing Urbin, 714 So.2d at 421 ) (concluding that the prosecutor had engaged in a subtle golden rule argument by creating an imaginary script demonstrating that the victim was shot while pleading for his life); Mosley v. State, 46 So.3d 510, 521 (Fla.2009).

2008See, e.g., Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411, 421 (Fla.1998).

1994In LeRetilley v. Harris, 354 So.2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), counsel for appellant objected to a golden rule argument but did not secure a ruling on the objection.

1983In any event, an objection is required to challenge a golden rule argument, Le Retilley v. Harris, 354 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 1978); appellant did not object. *1158 Next, appellants contend that we must reverse because the trial court permitted defense counsel to inform the jury during voir dire that Kearse was uninsured.

1992Simmonds v. Lowery, 563 So.2d 183, 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Cummins Alabama, Inc. v. Allbritten, 548 So.2d 258, 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Schreidell v. Shoter, 500 So.2d 228, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1987).

1989Schreidell v. Shoter, 500 So.2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1987); Miku v. Olmen, 193 So.2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966).

1979See Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701 , 169 So. 372 (1936).

1979See Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701 , 169 So. 372 (1936).

1977See Magid v. Mozo, 135 So.2d 772 (Fla.1st DCA 1962).

1969This case has been followed by Magid v. Mozo, Fla.App. 1961, 135 So.2d 772 and Miku v. Olmen, Fla. App. 1966, 193 So.2d 17 .

2022See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986) (“The harmless error test … places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.”); Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 547 (Fla. 1999) (“[A] motion for mistrial should be granted only when it is necessary to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.”) (citation and 4 internal quotation marks omitted); Grushoff v.

2022See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986) (“The harmless error test … places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.”); Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 547 (Fla. 1999) (“[A] motion for mistrial should be granted only when it is necessary to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.”) (citation and 4 internal quotation marks omitted); Grushoff v.

2022See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986) (“The harmless error test … places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.”); Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 547 (Fla. 1999) (“[A] motion for mistrial should be granted only when it is necessary to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.”) (citation and 4 internal quotation marks omitted); Grushoff v.

2018See, e.g., Cumbie v. State, 378 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (quashed on other grounds by State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1980)) (holding it was a golden rule violation for state to argue to jury in sexual battery case: “Now, we men often times can't appreciate the assault on a body that a woman has to undergo when she is being raped or attempted to be raped, but I think we can think about it and kind of try to imagine, if you think of yourself in a similar situation . . . .”) Nevertheless, most of the decisions condemning arguments as golden rule violations in the criminal trial contex

2018See also Gonzalez v. State, 136 So. 3d 1125, 1153 (Fla. 2014).

2017See, e.g., Doorbal, 837 So.2d at 957 (Golden Rule violation where prosecutor argued: “Remember [the police detective who] came in and showed you how that Omega taser works.

2017Signed over his entire life.”); Davis v. State, 604 So.2d 794, 797 (Fla. 1992) (Golden Rule violation where prosecutor argued: “[I]t might not be a bad idea to look at [the knife] and think about what it would feel like if it went two inches into your neck.”); Garron v. State, 528 So.2d 353, 358-59 (Fla. 1988) (Golden Rule violation where prosecutor argued: “Imagine the anguish and pain that [the victim] felt as she was shot in the chest and [dragged] herself from the bathroom into the bedroom where she expired.”); Bertolotti, 476 So.2d at 133 (Fla. 1985) (Golden Rule violation where prosecuto