CHRISTOPHER BLACKWOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Severance Of Trials cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion, and now reverse appellant’s conviction and direct a new trial because of the trial court’s erroneous refusal to sever the trial of appellant from that of his code-fendant.
It was error under prevailing law to admit both defendants’ statements in a joint trial, where each defendant’s confession pointed the finger at the other; both denied in their statements participation in the robbery aspect of the case; and neither defendant testified at trial. Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987); and Roundtree v. State, 546 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1989). See also Williams v. State, 608 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA) (opinion issued this date). We also conclude that the error was not harmless, in view of the undisputed evidence of the codefendant’s prior encounter with the victim, and appellant’s explanation that he was acting in response to the codefendant’s statement that the victim had taken something from the codefendant. Under these circumstances we cannot conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the error made a difference in the outcome of the case. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
ANSTEAD, HERSEY, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., JR., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Therrien v. State, 859 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…vides, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law....” The right to pursue a career has been held to be a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See K.M.T. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 608 So. 2d 865, 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citing Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923); State ex rel. Fulton v. Ives, 123 Fla. 401, 167 So. 394, 399 (1936)); see also Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 320, 327, 18 L.Ed. 356 (1867…
-
State v. Lindquist, 698 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…the Department provided opportunities for appeals at varying stages during the proceedings, appellees alleged failure to afford such procedural due process before destruction of the nets. See K.M.T. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 608 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (concluding that absent necessity of quick action by the state, due process requires opportunity of hearing before deprivation of significant property interest). We have considered the Department’s argument that appellees have a…
-
Perry v. Verleni, 853 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…have a right to the fair administration of the rules regulating the granting of licenses. See Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Dade County, Lodge No. 6 v. Dep’t of State, 392 So. 2d 1296 (Fla.1981); K.M.T. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 608 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Finally, chapter 120, Florida Statutes, requires notice of any hearing which affects the substantial interests of a party. See § 120.569, Fla. Stat. (2000). Here, the Department sent a Notice of Hearing to Dr. Verleni on March…
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
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1950)
- Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1987)
- Roundtree v. State, 546 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1989)
- Van Williams v. State, 608 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)