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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ARGmENT VII THE TRIAL, COURT ERRED I" PFJWITTING THE PmFLTJIVF5 To HEPEATEDLY ADVISE TJXF, JUW THaT (Xb- EUI"E PaRKER HAD PLEADED GUILTY AND HAD BEEN GI" A PI,&A BARGAIN IN EXCWWGE FOR HER TESTIMCM AGAINST THE DEFE"T, WHEKE ZHE cO-DEFET\naANT Was NUC CALLED AS A WITNESS DURING ?IIE: TRJXL, IN VIOLATIa OF ?HE D m ' S DUE: P-S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL JUHY AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFIH, SIXTH AND l ? O m 2YGNMXE 3D ?WE U.S . CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 9 AND 16 OF 'IHE: FLORIlX CDNSTITUTION. Wing the voir dire examination the prosecutors, over objection, were permitted to inform the jury that m-defendant Billy i3ng had pled guilty to second degree mder for &mting Nancy Sheppard in the head and killing her, that Joan Bennett had pled guilty to accessory after the fact of one nuder, and that Elaine Parker, "the f om wife of defendant Fbbert Tinker Parker", had pled guilty to second degree murder and '"may testify in this case". (T. 436- 446, 659-663, 763-766, 848-849). The prosecutors called long and Bennett as witnesses, but did not call Elaine Parker. After the state rested, the defense mved for a mistrial on that basis. (T. 1667-1668, 1671). The prosecution responded that Ms. Parker might very well be a rebuttal witness (T. 1669-1671). Tne mtion f a mistrial was denied. (T. 1673-1674). After the defense rested, the pmsecutors did not call Elaine Parker as a rebuttal witness and the defense renewed its rmtion for mistrial. (T. 2052). The pmsecutxxs justified not calling Ms. Parker because the defendant "testified to what his wife would have testified -b either in mole or in part". CT. 2053-2054). In cross-examination and summtion, the prosecutors repeatedly called the defendant a liar, even *ugh Elaine Parker corroborated his testimny. (T. 1959, 2269). The general rule in that it is jlmproper for the state to disclose to the jury that anow defendant has been mnvicted. Jambs v. State, 396 So. - P - 2d 1113, 1117 (Fla. 1981). In Wre v. State, 186 So, 2d 56 (Fla, 3rd D.C.A. 1966), f3e court info& the jury that a m-defendant had pleaded guilty during a recess in the trial. In Thanas. v. State, 202 So, 2d 883 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 19671, - Page -50-
the prosecutor informed a juror once during voir dire, and once in opening statement, that an accamplice had been convicted. both cases. were permitted to explain in detail the nature of the plea bargain, to express the fact that Elaine Parker was the formzc wife of the defendant, and that shs was a potmtial state Witness testifying against the defendant. The court's instruction (R. 324) was hardly sufficient to erase the prejudice of telling the jury that the defendant's Tom wife, with whm he was living at the time of the offense, had made a deal with the state to testify against the defendant me remedy is a new trial. Reversal was required in Here, the error was much mre egregious, because the prosecutors AFGLJmNT VIII THE EYIDE2KE WAS INSUFFICIENT To SUSTAIN 24 OF GUILW OF FIFST DEGREE MURDF,R As To COUNT I a? mE I N D I C ~ . !the general rule is that, where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter hm strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. &Arthur v. -- State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977); -- Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla, 1956); Head v. State, 62 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1952). A mmllaxy tc~ this rule is that the defense version of a hdcide must be believed if the circumstances do not prove that version to be false. 2d 899 (Fla. 1954); MSrthur, supra, at 976, footnote 12. Here, there was m contention that the defendant himself killed or stabbed the deceased, Rjchard Padgett. (T. 914) 1.832-1833) . 1636). -- As to Count I, the undisputed evidence showed: Mayo - v. State, 71 So. (1) that Padgett med mney to Graver, not Parker (T. 1141, (2) that Padgett and Paxker were frieslds (T, 1138) (3) that there was bad blood between (kcover and Padgett (T. 1138, Page -51-
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 and 58: So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1983).
Page 59 and 60: EXPW AND JTETIFY PLEA BARWWNG WITH
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: Payment of mney to a witness for an
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?