REBECCA ANN CALDWELL, 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.
Rebecca Ann Caldwell appealed her convictions for three counts of grand theft and one count of making a false entry into corporate books. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed her convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's exclusion of defense witness testimony and no constitutional violation despite the trial judge's inappropriate comments during cross-examination.
The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding the defense witness testimony. The trial judge's comments to defense counsel, while undignified and inappropriate, did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to confrontation and cross-examination because the record shows defense counsel conducted vigorous and thorough cross-examination despite the intervention. The trial court properly imposed crime-prevention costs as mandatory under section 775.083(2) without also imposing a fine, and did not err by failing to cite statutory authority in the written order.
[1] A trial court's comments to defense counsel during cross-examination, while undignified and inappropriate, do not constitute fundamental error if the defense counsel is s…
[2] A judge must be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The record shows that defense counsel was able to conduct a vigorous and thorough cross-examination of the witnesses in spite of the trial court's unsolicited intervention and comments during cross-examination.”
Establishes that despite inappropriate judicial comments, no constitutional violation occurred because the defendant's right to cross-examine was not effectively abridged.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCaldwell was convicted of three counts of grand theft and one count of making a false entry into corporate books. During trial, the trial judge made u…
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 Mandatory Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm appellant’s convictions for three counts of grand theft and one count of making a false entry into corporate books, because the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding the testimony of a defense witness in the trial of this case. We write, however, to comment upon remarks the trial judge made to defense counsel during his cross-examination of state witnesses.
Appellant complains that the trial court’s comments to defense counsel during his cross-examination of the state’s witnesses improperly abridged her constitutional right of confrontation/cross-examination and amounted to fundamental error. We disagree. The record shows that defense counsel was able to conduct a vigorous and thorough cross-examination of the witnesses in spite of the trial court’s unsolicited intervention and comments during cross-examination.1
We do not repeat these remarks, because we do not wish to memorialize them in this opinion. However, we do not condone them. In our view, the trial court’s remarks to defense counsel during his cross-examination were undignified and inappropriate. See Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(4) (2012) (“A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity-”). As the Michigan Supreme Court explained:
Pert remarks and quips from the bench have no place in the trial of a criminal case, do not comport with judicial dignity and the injurious effect of such, though thoughtlessly uttered, may prove exceedingly damaging to the party entitled to a fair trial.
The accused had a right to be represented by an attorney and have the attorney treated with the consideration due such an officer of the court and belittling observations aimed at the attorney are, necessarily, injurious to the one he represents.
People v. Neal, 290 Mich. 123, 287 N.W. 403, 405-06 (1939).
We find no error in the trial court’s imposing the “crime-prevention cost,” pursuant to section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes (2010), without also imposing a fine. The crime prevention cost is mandatory and must be imposed regardless of whether or not the defendant was required to pay fines under a separate statutory basis. See Bryant v. State, 47 So.3d 952, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
We also find no error in the trial court’s failure to refer to the specific statutory authority for imposing costs in the written order. See Johnson v. State, 944 So.2d 474, 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that the trial court could impose statutorily mandated court costs on defendant without *1020referring to the statutory authority for their imposition). We distinguish Houle v. State, 33 So.3d 822, 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), cited by appellant, because, unlike here, in Houle there was no statutory authority for the fee imposed by the trial court.
Affirmed.
MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elbert v. State, 269 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…); Elbert v. State, 239 So. 3d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (table decision); Lindquist v. State, 155 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Bryant v. State, 47 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Bizzell v. State, 912 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Caldwell v. State, 125 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Walden v. State, 112 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). KELLY, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.…
-
Reynolds v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Sweeney v. State, 944 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Lesane v. State, 33 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Houle v. State, 33 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Bryant v. State, 47 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)