JOSEPH WOODS, 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.
Joseph Woods was convicted of aggravated fleeing and eluding police, but a police officer violated a pretrial order in limine by testifying that Woods was a "robbery suspect." The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding the prohibited evidence was prejudicial and could have affected the jury verdict.
The trial court erred in denying the motion for mistrial. Once preserved prejudicial error is demonstrated, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error could not have affected the verdict. The court was unable to make that finding here regarding the officer's reference to Woods as a robbery suspect.
[1] A mistrial motion is preserved for appeal when made as soon as defense counsel learns of an improper comment, even if the jury has begun deliberations but has not yet ret…
[2] A pretrial order in limine precluding reference to a defendant's status as a robbery suspect is violated when a police officer testifies that the defendant was behind the…
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“Once the appellant has demonstrated preserved prejudicial error, the State bears the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the impact of the error, in light of the overall strength of the case and the defenses asserted, could not have affected the verdict.”
Establishes the legal standard for harmless error review in Florida criminal appeals after preserved error is shown.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoods was wanted by the Lauderhill Police Department as a robbery suspect. When police officers located him and activated lights and sirens to detain …
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 Burden Of Proof On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWN, LUCY CHERNOW, Associate Judge.
In this case we are called upon to decide whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for mistrial when a police officer testified that appellant was a wanted robbery suspect, in violation of a pretrial order in limine. We find error and reverse as explained below.
Appellant, Joseph Woods (“Woods”), appeals his conviction for aggravated fleeing and eluding police officers. Woods was wanted by the Lauderhill Police Department as a robbery suspect, and officers were provided a picture of him with directions to detain him if they found him. Once law enforcement officers located Woods, they attempted to detain him by activating the lights and sirens in their police cars. Woods failed to stop when instructed to do so, and he led police officers on a chase, accelerating through a stop sign before he ultimately stopped.
Before trial, defense counsel moved in limine to preclude any reference to the fact that Woods was a robbery suspect. The prosecutors agreed that such evidence should not be admitted and the trial court granted the pretrial motion in limine, precluding any reference to the fact that Woods was a robbery suspect.
During trial, Officer Lagastra testified, “I heard Officer Manchóla call out that he was possibly behind the robbery suspect vehicle.... ” Defense counsel inexplicably failed to hear the comment. Accordingly, no objection was made at that time. The remark, however, did not elude Woods, who advised his attorney approximately three hours later, after the jury had begun deliberations. Defense counsel then verified with the court reporter that the remark had in fact been made and immediately moved for a mistrial. The motion was denied; the jury found Woods guilty of aggravated fleeing and eluding police officers, Woods was convicted and timely appealed.
A criminal defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that prejudicial error occurred and that the error was preserved in the trial court. Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1999). Here, trial counsel moved for a mistrial as soon as he learned of the improper comment. The jury had not yet returned its verdict. Under these facts, the error was preserved for appeal.
Once the appellant has demonstrated preserved prejudicial error, the State bears the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the impact of the error, in light of the overall strength of the case and the defenses asserted, could not have affected the verdict. Goodwin at 545. We are unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the impact of Officer Lagastra’s erroneous reference to appellant as a robbery suspect could not have affected the jury’s verdict in this case.
Accordingly, the appellant’s conviction is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for new trial.
FARMER, C.J., and STEVENSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
COX v. State, 975 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…umed correct, and Appellant carries the burden to demonstrate that prejudicial error occurred and that the error was preserved in the trial court. See § 924.051(7), Fla. Stat. (2006); Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 544 (Fla.1999); Woods v. State, 905 So. 2d 246, 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Our review of the record demonstrates that the trial court’s factual findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and that the law was correctly applied to the facts. First, we address the traffic stop and dete…
Authorities Cited
- Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999)