Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

mnq for drugs, and shmd only a propensity towards violence in general, Attacking the defendant's character in such a fashion is wholly improper; appsllate courts have been quick to reverse convictions where less extensive evidence was introduced. See Perkins v. - State, 349 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. 1977); Chapan v. State, 417 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1982); Hunt v. State, 429 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. 1983); Greene v. State, 376 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1979). It is improper for a prosecutor to use cross-examination to intentionally get irrelevant and inflmtory evidence before the j q , Qzaplman v. State, 417 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1982); nor my a prosecutor ask axqmund questions assuming facts not in evidence, Carter v. - State, 332 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. 1976); nor my he cross-examine by insult and innuendo, Qoeher v. State, 342 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1977), Stanton v. -r State 349 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1977); nor may he cross-examine to bring out irrelevant acts of violence, - Witt v. State, 410 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1982), Johnson v. State, 432 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1983). The prosecutor here was guilty of all these shortcanhgs; his improper tactics were recognized by this court in Straiqht v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981). to, othm were mt. Sane of these improprieties were objected Some of the objections were sustained, others were not. The overall effect of the collateral crks, bad acts, and inproper cross- examination was t;o deny the defendant a fair trial by virtue of an overwhelming attack on his character and propsities. 1234 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. 1980). The remdy is a new trial. Page -40- See Albright v. State, 378 So, 2d
EXPW AND JTETIFY PLEA BARWWNG WITH ZHEIR Ca'I'NESSEs IXJRIK THE SELEcTIGl PRXESS, SO AS TO DENY ?IEE D m A FAIR TRLW BY AN IMP- Juw, IN VIOUTION OF THE FIFIM, SIXTH, AND z4mNmmE To THE u.s, mTITUT1m AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 9 AND 16 OF THE FWRIIIA ~TI!I'UTION. Jbry selection in this cause began on February 28, 1983. (T. 341). The trial court reserved ruling on the defendant's Mtion for Change of Venue (T. 341-347) and denied the defendant's kbtion for Individual and Sequestered Voir Dire. (T. 344-347). dire. (T. 361-362). The prosecutors repsatedly told the jury that three co- defendants had pleaded guilty, described the nature of their plea bargains, and sought to explain and justify their "dealing". (T. 436-442, 443-447, 659- 663, 763-766, 848-849). inquiry (T. 436-7, 442, 444, 660-661, 765, 849). one venireman were to be questimed at once, defense counsel had difficulty keeping track of the prospective juror's nams (T. 463). questioning the venirenmen individuzdly, but was admnished by the court that questions had to be asked collectively, (T. 508-509). munsel's questions were prow, the court repeatedly admnished counsel to ask them collectively, of all twaty-one jurors. (T. 518-519). began prohibiting munsel from asking certain questions even though no objection had been raised by the prosecution. CT. 539-540). again admnished counsel to ask questions collectively, and defense counsel objected to the restrictions on voir dire and the procedure being followed. (T. 554-556). on the second day of jury selection (T. 584, 706-709, 718, 719, 724, 725). exchanges included the prosecution objecting on the basis that counsel was wasting the j q ' s th, due the juror being disqualified as a matter of law. (T. 718). Instead, twenty-one prospective jurors were seated for voir Defense counsel repatedly and vainly objected to the Due to the fact that twfmty- Qunsel began Despite finding that EVmtually, the court QI March 1, 1983, the court Additional adrmnishmmts in the presence of the jury occurred Tnis practice was in clear violation of the previous rulings by Page -41- Su&
Page 1 and 2:
RPPEAL FffQM THE CIRCUIT COURIT OF
Page 3 and 4:
V TRIAL COuIiT EXRED IN FAILING TO
Page 5 and 6:
UNRELATED O??F'ENSE AS EVIDENCE OF
Page 7 and 8: ACEEY. mm, 33tlTo~7"T% (Fla. 4th ;D
Page 9 and 10: c?JME3IEV. smm 345 So. 2 d m CURRYV
Page 11 and 12: i%W'HW v. STATE j// So'.' 2d 7807Fl
Page 13 and 14: MCMILLANV. smm 4119 So. 2d 1-la. 3r
Page 15 and 16: 0 PRamCE v. STATE 337 So, 2d 7 n l
Page 17 and 18: mmv, STATE 2d =la. 1st D.C.A, 1982)
Page 19 and 20: 0 INTRODUCTION The appellant, Fbber
Page 21 and 22: of Other Crbs, Wrongs, or Acts. (R.
Page 23 and 24: 0 (T. 1128-1129).crooVer said nothi
Page 25 and 26: 0 going to kill "the mther fucker",
Page 27 and 28: this would alleviate any problem be
Page 29 and 30: took out his knife and stabbed Padg
Page 31 and 32: (T, 1342-1343). mng's rmther disapp
Page 33 and 34: he said it, "nobdy paid any mbd to
Page 35 and 36: told the defendant to "back off". (
Page 37 and 38: and said, Yh ny God". (T. 1260). tw
Page 39 and 40: out of the cay. and walked around b
Page 41 and 42: WHEXFER THE THE JUHI UPON THE LAW Q
Page 43 and 44: IX X WHlTIWB THE TRIAL ERRED IN m I
Page 45 and 46: XVIII WHEXfER THE TRUG COUW: FBRED
Page 47 and 48: they were afraid of being killed by
Page 49 and 50: ut munsel could not argue it becaus
Page 51 and 52: to the co-defendant, who continued
Page 53 and 54: participate in the killing, 2. If t
Page 55 and 56: Brother Caps. (T. 1185) (4). the de
Page 57: So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1983).
Page 61 and 62: type of rebuke counsel received. on
Page 63 and 64: utilized the stature of his office
Page 65 and 66: likewise improper for the State Att
Page 67 and 68: Payment of mney to a witness for an
Page 69 and 70: the prosecutor informed a juror onc
Page 71 and 72: the fiream or threatened Padgett wi
Page 73 and 74: from the operation of discowry rule
Page 75 and 76: I resides. Stanley, supra; - Florid
Page 77 and 78: Pernutting the reputation testby. o
Page 79 and 80: little probative value w kn it is c
Page 81 and 82: - The fact that a defendant refused
Page 83 and 84: The United States Supre court has s
Page 85 and 86: 'BE general rule is that statements
Page 87 and 88: The general rule is that a witness'
Page 89 and 90: any person the defense "expects to
Page 91 and 92: CR, 6167 T, 58-7 Penalty (R. 16-31
Page 93 and 94: Sheppard's necklace and ring me tak
Page 95 and 96: (-TT* 1032, 10491. An execution-sty
Page 97 and 98: (5) W ilm Urgmn, the defendant's si
Page 99 and 100: The defense also argued for mitigat
Page 101 and 102: mitigating circumstance in a capita
Page 103: CFRI'IFICATE OF SERVTCE I HEREBY CE
show all

Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?