WILLIAM ALLEN, 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.
A defendant is denied a fair trial when tried before a jury partially chosen by a codefendant who subsequently testifies for the state.
Defendant Allen and codefendant Feinman moved to sever their trials due to inconsistent defenses, which was denied. Feinman later pled guilty and test…
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 Antagonistic Defenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Convicted defendant Allen raises two issues in this appeal. Since we reverse on the second issue, we need not address the other. Allen and codefendant Feinman moved to sever, claiming inconsistent defenses. We find no error in the denial of that motion. It is not an abuse of discretion to deny severance even when defendants rely on inconsistent or antagonistic defenses, or when one defendant blames the other for the offense. Biscardi v. State, 511 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
Feinman had been negotiating with the state for a plea, of which fact Allen was aware. The negotiations were not completed when the jury was selected, and both defendants participated in voir dire, with Feinman striking two of the jurors whom Allen had accepted. After the jury was sworn, but before the trial began, Feinman pled guilty and ultimately testified against Allen. Allen’s motion for mistrial was denied.
We find that Allen was denied a fair trial because he was tried before a jury partially chosen by a former codefendant testifying for the state. See Kritzman v. State, 520 So. 2d 568 (Fla.1988).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and MARTIN D. KAHN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. State, 739 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ual battery charge, he was improperly forced to admit guilt, pursuant to section 794.05, Florida Statutes (1997), for engaging in unlawful sexual activity with a person age 16 or 17 as to Count Two. In response, the State relies upon Allen v. State, 566 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), in which the district court said “[i]t is not an abuse of discretion to deny severance even when defendants rely on inconsistent or antagonistic defenses, or when one defendant blames the other for the offense.” Id. at 893. Furt…
-
Hodgkins v. State, 613 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…reflects appellant was properly sentenced. The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ„ concur. . The trial court directed a judgment of acquittal on the possession of drug paraphernalia offense. . Compare Allen v. State, 566 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), where the court held that the defendant was denied a fair trial because he was tried before a jury partially chosen by a former code-fendant testifying for the state.…
Authorities Cited
- Cyrus Biscardi v. State, 511 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Kritzman v. State, 520 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1988)