KARCEWSKI
v.
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.
Broderick Karcewski appeals his conviction for lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under twelve and the trial court's denial of his second motion for new trial. The appellate court affirms the judgment but expresses concern about potential juror misconduct, while affirming the trial court's ruling that Karcewski's second motion for new trial was untimely filed.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the second motion for new trial as untimely filed without good cause shown for the delay. The appellate court rejected both the timeliness argument and the fundamental error argument based on the record before it, while affirming without prejudice to Karcewski's right to file a timely postconviction motion.
[1] A second motion for new trial raising issues of juror misconduct is untimely if filed after the denial of the original motion and entry of judgment and sentence, absent a…
[2] A trial court may deny a motion to amend an original motion for new trial when the amendment seeks to introduce new information discovered after the expiration of the tim…
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“We are troubled by the juror's possible lack of candor. But based on the record before this court, we reject the argument that the trial court erred in denying in part and dismissing in part Karcewski's second motion for new trial.”
Establishes the court's concern about juror misconduct while still upholding the trial court's procedural ruling on timeliness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKarcewski was convicted of lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under twelve. During the pendency of his original motion for new trial, Karcewski…
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 Good Cause For Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
BRODERICK KARCEWSKI,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2021-3443
September 13, 2024
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Laura E. Ward, Judge. Olivia M. Goodman and Rachael E. Reese of O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sonia C. Lawson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM.
Broderick Karcewski appeals his judgment and sentence for lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under twelve as well as the order denying in part and dismissing in part his second motion for new trial. Karcewski raised four issues on appeal. We affirm but write to briefly address the issue related to potential juror misconduct. Karcewski contends that fundamental error occurred due to juror misconduct arising from a juror's purported lack of candor during jury selection. Karcewski also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying in part and dismissing in part his second motion for new trial because good cause existed to permit an amendment to the original motion for new trial due to the receipt of a juror investigation report after the expiration of the ten-day period in which to request a juror interview.
The original motion for new trial contained several arguments unrelated to juror misconduct, and it was during the pendency of that motion that Karcewski received a juror investigation report regarding potential juror misconduct. However, Karcewski did not seek to amend the original motion for new trial to include that new information. It was only after the trial court denied the original motion for new trial and entered the judgment and sentence—two months after the juror investigation report was received—that Karcewski filed his second motion for new trial raising the issue of juror misconduct. The trial court concluded that the second motion was untimely filed pursuant to the applicable rules of criminal procedure and that no good cause had been shown for the delay in bringing the issue to the trial court's attention. The trial court denied the motion pursuant to those rules.1