CARLOS REYES, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a conviction for lewd assault and sexual battery because the trial judge's comments on witness testimony deprived the defendant of a fair trial despite a curative instruction.
A trial judge's comments on witness testimony that depart from impartiality deprive a defendant of a fair trial when the case outcome depends on witness credibility, and a curative instruction cannot remedy the prejudice.
[1] A trial judge must refrain from comments on witness testimony that convey the judge's view of the case or the credibility of evidence, as such comments deprive a defendan…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Great care should always be observed by the judge to avoid the use of any remark in the hearing of the jury that is capable, directly or indirectly, expressly, inferentially, or by innuendo, of conveying any intimation as to what view he takes of the case, or that intimates his opinion as to the weight, character, or credibility of any evidence adduced.”
Establishing the standard for judicial impartiality in the presence of a jury, citing Lester v. State, 37 Fla. 382 (1896).
Carlos Reyes was convicted of lewd assault and sexual battery. The trial judge made comments regarding witness testimony during the proceedings.…
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 Lewd And Lascivious Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Carlos Reyes appeals his conviction for lewd assault and sexual battery. Reyes alleges the trial court’s comments deprived him of a fair trial. We reverse.
“Great care should always be observed by the judge to avoid the use of any remark in the hearing of the jury that is capable, directly or indirectly, expressly, inferentially, or by innuendo, of conveying any intimation as to what view he takes of the case, or that intimates his opinion as to the weight, character, or credibility of any evidence adduced.” Lester v. State, 37 Fla. 382, 387-88, 20 So. 232, 234 (Fla.1896); Peek v. State, 488 So. 2d 52 (Fla.1986); Whitenight v. Int’l Patrol & Detective Agency, Inc., 483 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986); Keane v. State, 357 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Abrams v. State, 326 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). In the case before us, the trial judge departed from his impartial role and commented on the testi mony of witnesses. The court’s comments were especially damaging because the outcome of the case depended on the credibility of the witnesses. Thus, we hold that the curative instruction did not prevent the trial court’s comments from depriving Reyes of a fair trial.
Our resolution of this issue makes it unnecessary for us to reach the remaining points on appeal.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Arvinger, 751 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…e and improper. See, generally, Williams v. State, 143 So. 2d 484, 488 (Fla.1962). They deprive the parties of their right to a hearing presided over by a fair and impartial judge. Palmer v. State, 739 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Reyes v. State, 547 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(b)(1). On remand, this case should not be handled by Judge Swigert. REVERSED; REMANDED for resen-tencing pursuant to the guidelines. PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . See Pease v. State, 712 So. 2d 37…
-
Fogelman v. State, 648 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…of conveying any intimation as to what view he takes of the ease or that intimates his opinion as to the weight, character, or credibility of any evidence adduced. Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447, 147 So. 897, 902-03 (1933). See also Reyes v. State, 547 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In Millet v. State, 460 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review dismissed, 466 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1985), the trial court made four comments which indicated the trial court’s belief that the testifying defendant was being unresponsive…
-
Baker v. State, 578 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ts here were inadvertent and adequately cured by the instructions which followed. The instant case is distinguishable from Redford v. State, 477 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), where no curative instructions were given. Further, unlike Reyes v. State, 547 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the inadvertent comment in the instant case does not involve a trial judge’s improper comment upon the testimony of witnesses or departure from an impartial role. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in instructing the ju…
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
- Lester v. State, 37 Fla. 382 (Fla. 1896)
- Peek v. State, 488 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1986)
- Renfroe v. Renfroe, 326 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Abrams v. State, 326 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Keane v. State, 357 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Whitenight v. Int'l Patrol & Detective Agency, Inc., 483 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)