LUIS FERNANDO VALDERRAMA, 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 held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal and mistrial, nor in denying the motion to strike the venire.
The appellant was convicted of sexual battery and lewd assault. During the trial, the child victim mentioned uncharged sexual acts, and several potent…
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 Presumptive Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Appellant raises three issues in this appeal from his convictions for sexual battery and lewd assault. He first claims that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the lewd assault charge because the corpus delicti was not established before his confession was admitted. However, he failed to object to the admission of the confession on that ground, and his motion for judgment of acquittal did not alert the trial court to this argument. Thus, it is not preserved for appeal. See J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
Second, he argues that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when the child victim referred to additional, uncharged, and previously undisclosed acts of sexual intercourse. While generally implicating a defendant in other crimes is presumptively prejudicial, see Pastor v. State, 792 So. 2d 627, 630-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), where the testimony is unsolicited, inadvertent, and isolated, a trial court is not required to declare a mistrial. See Rivera v. State, 745 So. 2d 343, 344-45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). That is the case with the inadvertent testimony from the child victim in this case.
Finally, appellant maintains that the court erred in denying his motion to strike the venire after many of the members revealed that they had been victims of sexual abuse as children. A trial court’s decision on whether to dismiss a venire panel is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Brower v. State, 727 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). While there were many members of the panel who expressed reservations about serving on this jury because of the nature of the charges, many others indicated an ability to be impartial even after hearing the other member’s personal experiences. We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in this case. See Bauta v. State, 698 So. 2d 860, 861-62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
Affirmed.
FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State, 4 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 2009)…se of discretion standard. England v. State 940 So. 2d 389, 402 (Fla.2006) (citing Perez v. State, 919 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2005)). A trial court’s decision on whether to dismiss a venire is also reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Valderrama v. State, 816 So. 2d 1143, 1144 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We have long held that a juror’s or prospective juror’s brief, inadvertent view of a defendant in shackles is not so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial. See, e.g., Singleton v. State, 783 So. 2d 970, 976 (Fla. 2001) (ex…
-
Knight v. State, 76 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 2011)…for a new penalty phase proceeding. Knight’s argument is without merit. A trial court’s decision on whether to dismiss a venire is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Richardson v. State, 706 So. 2d 1349, 1357 (Fla.1998); Valderrama v. State, 816 So. 2d 1143, 1144 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Bauta v. State, 698 So. 2d 860, 861-62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). We have previously considered this issue as a guilt-phase claim and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial aft…
-
Martinez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr. (S.D. Fla. 2023)…velation to the jury—that Martinez might have sold drugs—is what triggered Martinez’s counsel to move for the mistrial. See id. at 500 (“The Court: Are we going forward on a mistrial? [Defense Counsel:] I want a mistrial.”); cf. Valderrama v. State, 816 So. 2d 1143, 1144 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“[G]enerally[,] implicating a defendant in other crimes is presumptively prejudicial[.]”). And, as we’ve said, jeopardy typically wouldn’t attach in these circumstances because the defense requested the mistrial. See Uni…
Authorities Cited
- J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1998)
- Rivera v. State, 745 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Bauta v. State, 698 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Brower v. State, 727 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Pastor v. State, 792 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)