# Brown v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · March 12, 1991 · 575 So. 2d 1363

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7589735

## Case

- **Full name:** Frank BROWN v. The STATE of Florida
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** March 12, 1991
- **Citations:** 575 So. 2d 1363; 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2105; 1991 WL 31821
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Ferguson, Gersten, Schwartz
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7589735

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Frank Brown, appeals his convictions and sentences for armed robbery, burglary of a conveyance, and carrying a concealed firearm. We affirm.
Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the prosecutor violated the “Golden Rule” during closing argument and thereby deprived appellant of a fair trial. Appellant ascribes error to the following statement:
Certainly, someone putting their arm through your window when you had it down, thinking they are going to ask you a question, snatching your chain ...
We find no error. The prosecutor’s statement has been taken out of context. *1364 The sentence complained of was part of a recitation by the prosecutor of the victim’s testimony, from the victim’s point of view.
The “Golden Rule” proscribing the placing of jurors in the shoes of the victim was not violated by the statement. See, e.g., Clark v. State, 553 So.2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Further, any error was at most harmless in the face of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Accordingly, we affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7589735. Public record. Not legal advice.