OLIVER JONES, 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.
Oliver Jones appeals his convictions for sexual battery, kidnapping, aggravated battery, and firearm possession during a felony. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirms the convictions, rejecting challenges to the trial court's competency finding, admission of sanity opinion testimony, and denial of a mistrial motion.
The court affirmed all three rulings. First, amnesia or memory loss does not itself establish incompetency to stand trial if the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with counsel and a rational understanding of the proceedings. Second, a police officer's opinion that the defendant was sane, based on the defendant's responsive statements, was admissible to rebut the insanity defense even though the underlying statements were suppressed, as long as their content was not revealed to the jury. Third, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mistrial because the erroneous testimony was not deliberate, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and the defendant refused a curative instruction.
[1] Amnesia or memory loss does not in itself amount to a lack of competency to stand trial.
[2] A police officer may testify regarding a defendant's sanity based on observations of the defendant's responsive and intelligible statements made during an interrogation,…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is well-settled, however, that amnesia or memory loss does not in itself amount to a lack of competency to stand trial.”
Establishes the legal principle that a defendant's amnesia regarding the charged crimes does not render him incompetent to stand trial, addressing the first major issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOliver Jones was charged with sexual battery, kidnapping, aggravated battery, and possession of a firearm during a felony. At trial, psychiatric testi…
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 Curative Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Oliver Jones appeals his judgments of conviction and sentences for sexual battery, kidnapping, aggravated battery and possession of a firearm during a felony. We affirm.
First, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the defendant competent to stand trial. There was sufficient evidence adduced at the sanity hearing below upon which the trial court could have concluded, as it did, that the defendant Jones had a “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and had a “rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against him.” § 916.12(1), Fla.Stat. (1983); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.210(a)(1); see Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960); Lane v. State, 388 So. 2d 1022 (Fla.1980); see also Brock v. State, 69 So. 2d 344 (Fla.1954); Morejon v. State, 394 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); King v. State, 387 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Pressley v. State, 261 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
We do not overlook the psychiatric testimony adduced below that the defendant Jones suffered from amnesia or memory loss which impaired his ability to remember the events of the crimes charged and to assist his counsel in that respect. It is well-settled, however, that amnesia or memory loss does not in itself amount to a lack of competency to stand trial. United States v. Mota, 598 F. 2d 995 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1084, 100 S.Ct. 1042, 62 L.Ed.2d 770 (1980); Robbins v. State, 312 So. 2d 243, 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Dykman v. State, 300 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1105, 95 S.Ct. 774, 42 L.Ed.2d 800 (1975); see also United States v. Sermon, 228 F.Supp. 972 (W.D.Mo.1964).
Second, the trial court committed no error in allowing a police officer to testify, over objection, that in his opinion the defendant was sane, based on his observations of the responsive and intelligible nature of the defendant’s statements made to him during a police interrogation. Although the trial court had previously suppressed the defendant’s interrogation statements as having been elicited in violation of the Miranda standards, the content of the statements and conversations was never revealed to the jury and the opinion testimony was relevant to rebut the defense of insanity. State v. Prewitt, 104 Ariz. 326, 452 P. 2d 500, 507 (1969); State v. Ruelas, 35 Wash.App. 595, 668 P. 2d 617 (1983); see United States v. Emery, 682 F. 2d 493, 501-02 (5th Cir.1982).
As the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Burwick, 442 So. 2d 944, 948 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1719, 80 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984), has stated:
“In the instant case, the prosecution could have elicited testimony which would demonstrate the fact that the defendant carried on a rational and coherent conversation without specifically revealing that he chose to remain silent and assert his constitutional rights.”
Third, the trial court committed no error in denying a defense motion for mistrial after a state witness [Dr. Lloyd Miller] testified in rebuttal before the jury that the defendant had previously been adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile. We reach this result because it is clear on this record that (1) the state did not deliberately elicit this testimony; (2) the defendant had previously elicited through his own witness [Dr. Stillman] that he [the defendant] had a prior criminal record for shoplifting; (3) the sole defense in the case was insanity; (4) the evidence of guilt was overwhelming as to the defendant’s involvement in the crimes charged; (5) the offending testimony, although inadmissible, had no appreciable impact whatever on the outcome of the case; and (6) the defendant specifically refused a curative jury instruction which the trial court offered to give. All things considered, we agree with the trial court that the testimony was, “perhaps unfortunate, but I do not think it was critical.” See Holcomb v. State, 443 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Taylor v. State, 289 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kent v. State, 702 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…Fla.1986) (possibility of organic brain damage does not necessarily mean that one is incompetent); Cooks, 642 So. 2d at 23 (defendant’s amnesia regarding the crime did not mandate that he be found legally incompetent to stand trial); Jones v. State, 465 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (amnesia or memory loss does not in itself amount to a lack of competency to stand trial). See also Lavender v. State, 650 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (J. Cobb, concurring specially) (defense motion for a psychiatric evaluatio…
-
Chestnut v. State, 505 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…he death penalty. . By analogy a lay witness may offer an opinion regarding the mental competency of a defendant, provided the opinion is based upon personal knowledge or observation. Rivers v. State, 458 So. 2d 762, 765 (Fla.1984); Jones v. State, 465 So. 2d 1330, 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
-
State v. Cooks, 642 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…alleged.” The State correctly contends that the Defendant’s amnesia regarding the events of the crime does not mandate that he be found legally incompetent to stand trial. See Cortes-Rivas v. State, 623 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Jones v. State, 465 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Robbins v. State, 312 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 327 So. 2d 34 (Fla.1976); United States v. Mota, 598 F. 2d 995 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1084, 100 S.Ct. 1042, 62 L.Ed.2d 770 (1980). However, that d…
Authorities Cited (17 total)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960)
- Hayward Lane v. State, 388 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1980)
- Hurt v. Britton, 419 U.S. 1105 (U.S. 1975)
- Adolph Coors Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 419 U.S. 1105 (U.S. 1975)
- United States v. Evelio Mota and Juan Flores, 598 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1979)
- State v. Burwick, 442 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Brock v. State, 69 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1954)
- Mayfield v. Mohn, 444 U.S. 1084 (U.S. 1980)
- Pressley v. State, 261 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Morel v. United States, 444 U.S. 1084 (U.S. 1980)