Farris v. State
The Fourth DCA affirmed Farris's concealed firearm conviction but reversed her second-degree murder conviction (convicted as a principal), finding that cumulative prosecutorial error deprived her of a fair trial. The errors were: (1) the prosecutor referenced Farris's post-arrest statement in opening despite representing to the court she would not use it, and no such evidence was ever admitted; and (2) in rebuttal closing, the prosecutor misstated the law of principals by suggesting Farris did not need the same conscious intent as the shooter to be guilty of second-degree murder. The court held that while sufficient evidence supported denial of the JOA motion and the outdated principals jury instruction (missing 'beyond a reasonable doubt' language) was not fundamental error standing alone, the combination of the improper opening remark and the closing misstatement of law was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key facts
- Farris was convicted of concealed firearm and second-degree murder as a principal; the trial court denied her motion for judgment of acquittal.
- The prosecutor referenced Farris's post-arrest statement in opening despite representing the statement would not be used, and the statement was never admitted at trial.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is useful for practitioners on two fronts: it reinforces that a prosecutor's pretrial representations about not using certain evidence can bind the State, and that referencing excluded evidence in opening… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.