CARL A. LESTER, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Carl Lester was convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, and assault, but the Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to reversible error from the trial judge's improper comments during jury selection that essentially instructed the jury on the law of kidnapping using facts identical to those in the case, and erroneous imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for gun possession.
The trial judge's comments during jury selection were reversible error because they amounted to an expression that conduct similar to the defendant's constituted kidnapping under Florida law and could be construed as an expression of belief in the defendant's guilt. Additionally, the imposition of mandatory minimum three-year sentences for possession of the gun was erroneous because the defendant's accomplice, not the defendant, possessed the weapon during the commission of the robbery.
[1] A trial judge's comments during jury selection that express a belief in the defendant's guilt or misstate the law in a manner that could taint the jury panel constitute r…
[2] A judge's explanation of a legal concept to a prospective juror, when framed in terms of the specific facts of the case, can be construed as an expression of belief in th…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Viewed in a light most favorable to the state, the judge's comment must be regarded as an expression by the judge that conduct similar to that of appellant is kidnapping under Florida law. It could even be construed as an expression of belief in this particular defendant's guilt. In either event, it is reversible error.”
Establishes that the trial judge's comments during jury selection constituted reversible error
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarl Lester was found guilty of armed robbery and kidnapping, and assault as a lesser included offense to battery. During jury selection, a prospectiv…
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 Constructive Possession Of Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Carl A. Lester was found guilty of armed robbery and kidnapping, and guilty of assault as a lesser included offense to battery. The judgment and sentence of the trial court are reversed and a new trial is ordered because of improper comments by the trial judge during jury selection and improper imposition of three year mandatory minimum sentences. The remaining issues raised on appeal are found to be without merit. During jury selection, a prospective juror stated that his daughter had been the victim of an attempted rape. He further stated that he could not base his decision on the law if the charge were kidnapping. The court then stated:
C: Let me explain to you about kidnapping. If you go in to rob a place and the man is behind the cash register and you make him go to the back room, that’s kidnapping under the law.
J: Yes, sir. C: Do you understand that?
J: Yes, sir. C: It’s not, you know, chasing someone over six states or anything like that.
The juror was excused for cause, and appellant moved for a mistrial because the court’s instruction on kidnapping was erroneous and based upon the facts of this case, and because the jury panel had been tainted. The court denied the motion without comment.
The facts disclosed at trial were identical to those described by the judge in his dialogue with the prospective juror. Viewed in a light most favorable to the state, the judge’s comment must be regarded as an expression by the judge that conduct similar to that of appellant is kidnapping under Florida law. It could even be construed as an expression of belief in this particular defendant’s guilt. In either event, it is reversible error. Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1958); Gans v. State, 134 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).
It appears undisputed from the record that appellant last touched the gun involved in these offenses when he took it from the glove compartment and put it on the front seat before getting out of the car in which appellant and his accomplice had driven to the scene. Only appellant’s accomplice had possession of the weapon during the commission of the robbery. Imposition of the mandatory minimum three year sentences for possession of the gun was erroneous. Earnest v. State, 351 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1977); Boozer v. State, 402 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
The judgment and sentence are REVERSED and the case REMANDED for a new trial.
JOANOS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darrin Bellinger v. State, 514 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…er this statute. Earnest v. State, 351 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1977). Actual physical possession of the weapon is contemplated before imposition of the section 775.087(2) mandatory minimum three-year term of imprisonment may be imposed. See Lester v. State, 458 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). As both appellant and appel-lee point out, appellant’s accomplice had possession of the weapon during the entire course of the crime. Appellant was never in possession. Therefore, the mandatory minimum sentence portion of appell…
-
Hernandez v. State, 538 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…interpreter, and yet (b) a police detective testified that the defendant gave a full confession to him in English. Saintjour v. State, 534 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see Pollard v. State, 444 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Lester v. State, 458 So. 2d 1194, 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Third, in view of the above, it is not necessary to reach the defendant’s final contention that it was reversible error to limit the defendant’s final argument to the jury to twenty minutes. The trial court, however, may…
-
Wilson v. State, 534 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…lly reviewed the statement of the court in the context of the record and find no error in denying appellant’s motion. The circumstances of this case are simply not analogous to either Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1958) or Lester v. State, 458 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), relied on by Wilson. We find merit in appellant’s second point contending that the lower court erred in assessing court costs without inquiring into appellant’s ability to pay. Defense counsel objected to the court’s impositio…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Earnest v. State, 351 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1977)
- Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1958)
- Boozer v. State, 402 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Emil Jay Stehli v. State, 134 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Gans v. State, 134 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)