TERRANCE SIMMONS, 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.
Terrance Simmons appealed his aggravated assault conviction on three grounds. While the appellate court affirmed the sufficiency of evidence and the prosecutor's comment on his failure to testify, it reversed based on the trial judge's improper comment during rebuttal that validated the state's argument and demonstrated disapproval of the defense, violating the judge's duty of neutrality.
The trial judge's comment was reversible error. While judges may take initiative to clarify case issues, it is error for a judge to make remarks within the jury's hearing that convey the judge's view of the case or opinion on the weight, character, or credibility of evidence. The judge's comment validated the state's argument and demonstrated disapproval of the defense, breaching judicial neutrality.
[1] A trial judge's comment within the hearing of the jury that conveys the judge's view of the case or opinion on the weight, character, or credibility of the evidence const…
[2] A judge's remark that appears to validate the prosecution's argument and demonstrate disapproval of the defense's argument breaches judicial neutrality and is particularl…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Florida law is clear that it is error for the judge to make a remark within the hearing of the jury that might convey his view of the case or his opinion of the weight, character, or credibility of the evidence.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard prohibiting judicial comments on evidence to the jury
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Terrance Simmons was convicted of aggravated assault by jury. The state's evidence consisted primarily of testimony from the victim and one …
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 Comment On Evidence By Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, J.
Appellant challenges his conviction for aggravated assault, raising three issues: whether the evidence was insufficient to prove aggravated assault; whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to comment on the defendant’s failure to testify; and whether the trial court’s rebuke of defense counsel, which amounted to a comment on the evidence, deprived the appellant of a fair and impartial trial.
We affirm as to the first two issues.
We address only the third issue concerning the comment of the trial court.
We find that the judge’s comment in this case was reversible error. Appellant, Terrance Simmons, was convicted of aggravated assault by a jury. The State’s evidence primarily consisted of testimony from the victim and one other eyewitness. The defense attacked the credibility of these witnesses during cross examination and closing argument. During the State’s rebuttal, the prosecutor ridiculed the defense argument, saying, “according to the defense, no crime occurred here because [the victim] said it was a butcher knife and [the eyewitness] said it was a steak knife.” The trial court overruled defense counsel’s mischaracteri-zation of evidence objection by saying, “[i]t is accurate and dead on point. Sit down, Mr. Boothe.”
On appeal, appellant contends that this statement by the trial judge prejudiced the jury against defense counsel and deprived appellant of a fair trial.
We agree. While we recognized in Sparks v. State, 740 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), that a judge may take the initiative to clear up uncertainties in the issues of a case, Florida law is clear that it is error for the judge to make a remark within the hearing of the jury that might convey his view of the case or his opinion of the weight, character, or credibility of the evidence. See e.g., Fenelon v. State, 594 So. 2d 292, 294 (Fla.1992); Whitfield v. State, 452 So. 2d 548, 549 (Fla.1984); Seward v. State, 59 So. 2d 529, 531 (Fla.1952); Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447, 147 So. 897, 902 (1933).
The comment made by the judge in this case appears to validate the State’s argument, and therefore, it was error. Not only did the judge’s comment reflect approval of the State’s argument, it also demonstrated disapproval of the defense argument. This type of error is particularly harmful, as the judge’s position of neutrality is essential to the proper functioning of the justice system. See Sparks, 740 So. 2d at 36. When this neutrality is breached, the State has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986).
The State has not shown in this case that the judge’s comment did not contribute to the guilty verdict.
For the reasons expressed in this opinion, we conclude that the trial judge’s comment in the present case was error. We, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial.
VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hank Mathew v. State, 837 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…a, defense counsel’s conduct should not be visited upon the defendant to the extent that his fundamental right to a fair trial is abridged. Id. at 134 (quoting Hunter v. State, 314 So. 2d 174, 174-75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)); see also Simmons v. State, 803 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(reversing conviction for aggravated assault where the prosecutor ridiculed the defense, stating that “according to the defense, no crime occurred here because [the victim] said it was a butcher knife and [the eyewitness] sai…
-
Cardenas v. State, 816 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…tions were given as in Smith. Without support from other instructions, the instruction constitutes an uncorrected inadmissible comment on the evidence by the trial court. Such conduct has often been condemned and requires reversal. Simmons v. State, 803 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), and Fecske v. State, 757 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In a close case, as here, the impact of a trial court’s comment on the evidence had to be far-reaching. To think otherwise, I believe, misapprehends courtroom dynamics. Cl…
-
Odell Rutledge v. State, 1 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…tion. Appellant relies on case law stating that a trial judge errs by making a comment in the jury’s presence that might convey his or her view of the case or opinion as to the weight, character, or credibility of the evidence. See Simmons v. State, 803 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In such instances, [*1132] the error is so prejudicial to the defense that it cannot be extinguished with a curative instruction. See id. at 789. Appellant contends that the trial court violated this prohibition by comment…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- King Anthony Green v. State, 594 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1992)
- Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1933)
- Whitfield v. State, 452 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1984)
- Sparks v. State, 740 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Seward v. State, 59 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1952)