JOSE MIGUEL SALDANE, 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 held that a prospective juror's statement of familiarity with the defendant, without more, does not necessitate striking the entire venire panel. It also held that the trial court correctly excluded evidence of a co-perpetrator's subsequent crime.
The defendant was convicted of armed robbery. During jury selection, a prospective juror, a former police officer, stated the defendant looked familia…
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 Order In Limine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant Jose Miguel Sal-dane appeals his conviction for armed robbery. We affirm.
Defendant argues that the venire panel should have been stricken after a prospective juror, a former police officer, stated that defendant looked familiar.* Defendant argues that the other prospective jurors would necessarily conclude from the remark that defendant had a criminal record. We disagree. That comment, without more, does not call for dismissal of the entire group of prospective jurors. As one court has stated:
Appellant would have us presume that policemen are on familiar terms only with known criminals. The facts of life are otherwise. The mere fact of a prior acquaintance with officers of the law is as consistent with perfectly innocent activities as it is with prior criminal conduct. In view of this fact, we find that prejudice can result from allusions to a defendant’s prior acquaintance with the police only where it is coupled with some circumstance indicative of prior criminal activity, or where such allusion serves no legitimate purpose and is accompanied by innuendo.
United States v. Brock, 408 F. 2d 322, 324 (5th Cir.1969); see also Flowers v. State, 351 So. 2d 764, 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Defendant also claims error in the trial court’s order in limine which granted the state’s motion to preclude introduction of evidence of a subsequent crime committed by a co-perpetrator, Tracy McQuinn. Inquiry into that precise area led to this court’s reversal of defendant’s conviction after his first trial. See Saldane v. State, 685 So. 2d 43, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). The trial court was entirely correct in forbidding inquiry into that area on retrial, both to avoid further error and because the evidence defendant desired to adduce was not logically relevant.
Affirmed.
*
The former police officer did not serve on the jury-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 762 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1999); Saldane v. State, 739 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).…
Authorities Cited
- Jiri Berezovsky v. State, 351 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- United States v. Brock, 408 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Saldane v. State, 685 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)