JOSE G. BADILLO, 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.
Jose Badillo appeals his conviction for second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder with a firearm. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms his conviction, rejecting arguments regarding jury voir dire, admission of other bad acts evidence, and alleged improper comments on silence.
The court affirmed the conviction on all grounds. The trial court's finding that no courtroom exclusion occurred was supported by competent substantial evidence. The admission of the other bad acts evidence was proper as it was pertinent to intent and guilty knowledge. The detective's testimony regarding pre-arrest interviews was not a comment on silence. The prosecutor's question about arrest statements was not error because the defendant actually made a statement, so there was no silence to comment upon.
[1] A trial court's finding that a defendant's brother was not impermissibly excluded from voir dire is supported by competent substantial evidence when the trial court takes…
[2] Evidence of other bad acts is admissible when it is pertinent to the questions of intent and guilty knowledge.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Both statements were very pertinent to the questions of intent and guilty knowledge, among other things.”
Establishes the trial court's proper basis for admitting other bad acts evidence under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBadillo was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder with a firearm. At trial, the prosecution introduced evidence of defe…
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 Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*527] PER CURIAM.
Jose G. Badillo appeals his conviction for second degree murder and attempted second degree murder with a firearm. We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Badillo first argues that his brother was impermissibly éxclud-ed from attending the voir dire in this case. See generally Williams v. State, 736 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The defendant alleged that the court reporter’s notes should have reflected an oral order clearing the courtroom, but did not do so. We granted the defendant’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction, and the trial court took evidence on the point. The trial court’s finding that no such exclusion occurred is supported by competent substantial evidence.
The defendant argues that the trial court erroneously allowed evidence of other bad acts. We disagree. We assume for present purposes that both statements were adequately objected to. Both statements were very pertinent to the questions of intent and guilty knowledge, among other things. See '§ 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999); Sireci v. State, 399 So. 2d 964 (Fla.1981), overruled on other grounds, Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073 (1983). The statement to the detective directly contradicted defendant’s position at trial. The trial court’s rulings were well within its discretion.
The defendant argues that it constituted an impermissible comment on silence to allow the detective to testify that in two interviews with the defendant several months before his arrest, the' defendant never made any claim of self defense and never claimed that he had been attacked by either victim. There was no objection to this testimony at trial, and defense counsel was correct in declining to object. Examination regarding the contents of pre-arrest interviews did not amount to a comment on silence. See White v. State, 757 So. 2d 542, 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); State v. D.M., 654 So. 2d 256, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
Turning to the day of his arrest, the defendant argues that it was fundamental error for the prosecutor to ask the detective “What, if any, statements did [the defendant] make when you arrested him right there?” The defense claims that this unobjected-to question somehow constituted a comment on silence. The problem for the defendant is, there was no silence. The defendant made a statement and the detective told the jury what the statement was. :
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RAO v. State, 52 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…i.e., his exhortation to Curcio (posing as Lichtenberg) not to talk, to get out of town, etc. The prosecutor’s comments were no more than a suggestion to the jury that Rao’s statements were not the comments of an innocent man. In Badillo v. State, 822 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), the defendant claimed that it was error to allow a police detective to testify that in two interviews several months prior to the defendant’s arrest, the defendant never claimed self-defense as to the incident, which that was his…
Authorities Cited
- Sireci v. State, 399 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1981)
- Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 1983)
- Denzil Williams v. State, 736 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- White v. State, 757 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- State v. D.M., 654 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)