Diaz v. State
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision. The 8 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Jackson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
- Smith v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2025)
- McCormack v. Florida Department of Corrections (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2022)
- Diaz v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
- Parker v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County) (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2025)
- Brinson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)
- Dial v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
- Villella v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Angel DIAZ, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
*1287 Maury Halperin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Meredith L. Balo, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
GROSS, J.
We find one unpreserved error, but no fundamental error, in the prosecutor's closing argument. "A prosecutor's obligation is to secure justice, not victory at any cost." Cruse v. State, 522 So.2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). However, this duty does not limit prosecutors' closing arguments to flat, robotic recitations of "just the facts." Closing argument "is a time for robust, vigorous, challenging ... of an opponent's ideas." Norman v. Gloria Farms, Inc., 668 So.2d 1016, 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (Farmer, J., dissenting). We have great confidence in the common sense of jurors to decide cases on the law and facts without being unduly swayed by the lawyers' oratory. A prosecutor does not violate her obligation to seek justice by arguing the state's case with passion and conviction.
On the remaining issue, appellant did not preserve his objections to the quality of the trial court's factual findings required by section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2000). Such error, if any, was not fundamental error. See Anderson v. State, 655 So.2d 1118, 1119 (Fla. 1995); State v. Townsend, 635 So.2d 949, 959 (Fla. 1994).
KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.