AARON SMITH, 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.
The court affirmed the appellant's conviction for aggravated battery, rejecting challenges to jury selection, prosecutorial closing argument, and sentencing.
The trial court properly denied the challenge for cause to juror Cawdrey and did not abuse its discretion in imposing a departure sentence.
[1] A challenge for cause must be stated with specificity to be preserved for appellate review.
[2] Trial courts have latitude in ruling upon challenges for cause because they have a better vantage point to evaluate prospective jurors than appellate courts.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Smith was convicted of aggravated battery. During jury selection, he sought to strike juror Cawdrey for cause based on her beliefs regarding…
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 Manifest Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction of aggravated battery.
As to the refusal to grant appellant’s cause challenge to juror Cawdrey, appellant failed to preserve his objection that the juror should have been stricken due to her beliefs on a defendant’s right not to testify at trial. A challenge for cause must be stated with specificity. See Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982); § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.320. On the ground that was properly preserved, the trial court’s denial of the challenge for cause was not “manifest error;” the trial court has “latitude in ruling upon a challenge for cause because the court has a better vantage point from which to evaluate prospective jurors’ answers than does” an appellate court. See Mendoza v. State, 700 So. 2d 670, 675 (Fla.1997).
Of those remarks of the prosecutor in closing argument challenged by appellant, one was an appropriate use of metaphor and another was within the bounds of fair reply in addressing potentially unsavory aspects of the victim’s character. The appeal to sympathy by referring to the victim’s inability to kiss his son in the future was harmless, nonprejudicial error. Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s imposition of a departure sentence. See § 921.0016(3)(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); cf., Lowe v. State, 641 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
STONE, C.J., GROSS, J., and DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. State, 711 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…circumstantial evidence may support a self defense instruction, its connection to the theory may not be as [*234] attenuated as it was in this ease. Cf., Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). For the reasons stated in Smith v. State, 710 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), also decided today, we find no prejudicial error in the closing argument. STONE, C.J., GROSS, J., and DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- Marbel Mendoza v. State, 700 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1997)
- Lowe v. State, 641 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)