JACQUES BARRATTEAU, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in restricting cross-examination or in denying a mistrial based on prosecutorial comments.
The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced. He appealed, arguing that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated b…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Confrontation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Jacques Barratteau, was charged by information with second degree murder. Upon trial the jury found him guilty as charged. The trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to one hundred thirty-four years imprisonment.
Appellant urges reversal of his conviction and sentence. The points relied upon for reversal are that (1) “the trial court erred in restricting the defendant’s cross-examination of a state witness, where such questioning was crucially relevant to the theory of the defense, in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,” and (2) “the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial where the prosecutor’s comments in closing argument, to the effect that the defendant had the burden to produce exculpatory evidence, violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” We have carefully considered the points on appeal in the light of the record, controlling principles of law, and briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978); A. McD. v. State, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Bennett v. State, 405 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Alvarez v. State, 401 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Hufham v. State, 400 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Phillips v. State, 351 So. 2d 738 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1978); Frierson v. State, 339 So. 2d 312 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); see Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978).
An appellant, in a criminal case, has the burden of showing that the trial proceedings were so infected with prejudicial error as to compel a reversal of the judgment. Such error must be clearly demonstrated by appellant.
We find that no error was committed which injuriously affected any substantial rights of the appellant. Therefore the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pazos v. State, 488 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Barratteau v. State, 422 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); James v. State, 334 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).…
-
Desmarias v. State, 526 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…[*1082] PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for aggravated battery. We find no reversible error presented by the defendant’s cross examination point, e.g., Barratteau v. State, 422 So. 2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Blasco v. State, 419 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Cummings v. State, 412 So. 2d 436, 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), but conclude that his sentencing point has merit in accord with the state’s concession on this issue. State v.…
Authorities Cited
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- Hufham v. State, 400 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Cosme Rodriguez v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- McD. v. State, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Whittenton v. City OF NEW Smyrna Beach, 351 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Frierson v. State, 339 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Phillips v. State, 351 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Bennett v. State, 405 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Alvarez v. State, 401 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)