JOSE CASTILLO, 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 reversed the defendant's conviction and sentence based on evidentiary errors during the trial.
The defendant's conviction and sentence were appealed. Errors included improper cross-examination of a witness and potentially improper jury selection…
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 Improper Cross-Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
[*8] PER CURIAM.
On authority of Andrews v. State, 459 So. 2d 1018 (Fla.1984), State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984), and City of Miami v. Cornett, 463 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), we reverse defendant’s conviction and sentence.1
We find error also in the state’s cross-examination of the defendant’s mother-in-law which attempted to portray her as involved in a plot to bribe a witness where there was no evidence to support the suggestion. See Harris v. State, 447 So. 2d 1020, 1020 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Smith v. State, 414 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The issue raised in appellant’s fourth point on appeal — that the enhanced and mandatory sentence was not supported by the evidence — is not likely to reoccur after a new trial and therefore requires no treatment here. The remaining issue is without merit.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
. A sub-issue under this point is whether a defendant may protest that an identifiable group other than his own is being systematically excluded. The question was answered affirmatively by the United States Supreme Court in Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972), which held that a criminal defendant, whatever his race, has standing to challenge the arbitrary exclusion of members of any race from service on a grand or petit jury.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1972)
- Andrews v. State, 459 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1984)
- City OF Miami v. Cornett, 463 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Smith v. State, 414 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Harris v. State, 447 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)