SAMUEL JAMES WHITAKER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Recusal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Samuel James Whitaker appeals his judgment and conviction for sale or delivery of cocaine. Whitaker raises four issues, two of which we find have merit. We find that Whitaker’s motion to recuse was legally sufficient and that the trial court should have granted the motion. See Robbins v. Robbins, 742 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (stating that the allegation that the ex-wife socialized with the trial judge was legally sufficient to require recusal). Furthermore, we find that the trial court’s sua sponte declaration that Officer Samuel Koivisto qualified as an expert witness constituted an improper comment on the credibility of the witness. See § 90.106, Fla. Stat. (1997); Fogelman v. State, 648 So. 2d 214, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial. The chief judge of the fourth judicial circuit shall assign another judge within the circuit to preside over the new trial.
WEBSTER, DAVIS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osorio v. State, 186 So. 3d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…the issues in a case, it is error for the judge to make any remark in front of the jury that might be interpreted as conveying the judge’s view of the case or an opinion on the weight, character, or credibility of the evidence”); Whitaker v. State, 742 So. 2d 530, 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that “the trial court’s sua sponte declaration that [the witness] qualified as an expert witness constituted an improper comment on the credibility of the witness”); Fogelman v. State, 648 So. 2d 214, 219 (Fla. 4th…
-
Norfleet v. State, 223 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…jury because doing so “confers an imprimatur of authority and credibility, thereby inordinately augmenting the witness’s stature while simultaneously detracting from the court’s position of neutrality.” Id. at 609. We agree. See Whittaker v. State, 742 So. 2d 530, 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that the “the trial court’s sua sponte declaration that [an officer] qualified as an expert constituted an improper comment on the credibility of the witness”); Chambliss v. White Motor Corp., 481 So. 2d 6, 8 (Fla.…
Authorities Cited
- Fogelman v. State, 648 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Robbins v. Robbins, 742 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)