VLADIMIR JEAN MOISE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court's denial of a motion for continuance and remarks made during jury selection do not constitute fundamental error warranting reversal when the remarks do not directly express the judge's view on guilt or evidence credibility and the defense failed to proffer the nature of anticipated witness testimony.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion for continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be reversed only upon a clear showing of palpable abuse, and such abuse is…
[2] Comments made during jury selection that carry potential for confusion but do not directly express the trial judge's views on guilt, credibility of witnesses, or weight o…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“A venire member's expression of an opinion before the entire panel is not normally considered sufficient to taint the remainder of the panel.”
Standard for evaluating prejudicial effect of comments during jury selection, cited from Johnson v. State, 903 So. 2d 888, 897 (Fla. 2005)
Moise appealed his criminal conviction from Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, challenging both jury selection procedures and the trial court's denial o…
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 Motion For Continuance cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 28, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1610 Lower Tribunal No. F18-767
________________
Vladimir Jean Moise,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel M. de la O, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before MILLER, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 903 So. 2d 888, 897 (Fla. 2005) (“A venire member’s expression of an opinion before the entire panel is not normally considered sufficient to taint the remainder of the panel.”); Warren v. State, 307 So. 3d 871, 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (holding remarks that “carry the potential for confusion,” yet not “‘so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial,’” do not constitute fundamental error) (quoting Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So. 2d 637, 646 (Fla. 2000)); Weddington v. State, 270 So. 3d 468, 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (finding no fundamental error where “the trial judge’s . . . hypothetical . . . [bore] no resemblance to the sexual battery and battery charges against [a]ppellant, and the judge’s comments about the hypothetical did not express his view on the weight of the evidence, the credibility of a witness, or the guilt of [a]ppellant”); Cheatham v. State, 346 So. 2d 1218, 1218–19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (“The general rule is that the granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial court, and the court’s action with respect thereto will be reversed only upon a showing of a palpable abuse of discretion.”); Jones v. State, 125 So. 3d 917, 919 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (affirming denial of motion for continuance where “[n]o attempt was made to indicate or proffer the nature of the anticipated testimony of any of the three defense witnesses”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 903 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2005)
- Warren v. State, 307 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Weddington v. State, 270 So. 3d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)