CARLTON ROBINSON, A/K/A ROBBIE ROBINSON, 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.
The court held that a judge's remark commenting on a witness's honesty and education, which could be interpreted as vouching for their credibility, constitutes reversible error.
During a trial for unlawful possession and dispensing of marijuana, the judge remarked that a witness was honest but less educated, and doing his best…
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was convicted of unlawful possession and dispensing of marijuana.
During the course, of the defendant’s trial, by jury, appellant’s counsel was cross-examining a state witness when the court made the following remark:
“The witness Tymes is an honest, poor man, who has had a very hard time getting an education. He is not as well educated as we are and for that reason his answers may not appear to be like those of an educated man. He is doing the best he can.”
Counsel for appellant moved for a mistrial, for the reason that this remark constituted a comment by the court upon the veracity of the witness. Appellant contends the denial of this motion was reversible error; we agree.
The comment, by the court, in regard to the witness went into that realm where the jury could have been persuaded, by virtue of the judge’s comment, to rely on this witness’s veracity. The comment amounted to the judge vouching for the witness’s character. In Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 422, 424-425, Judge Horton pointed out the dangers involved in such a situation:
“The dominant position occupied by a judge in the trial of a cause before a jury is such that his remarks or comments, especially as they relate to the proceedings before him, overshadow those of the litigants, witnesses and other court officers. Where such comment expresses or tends to express the judge’s view as to the weight of the evidence, the credibility of a witness, or the guilt of an accused, it thereby destroys the impartiality of a trial to which the litigant or accused is entitled.”
We do not say that the trial judge’s comment in this case amounted to any preference, or even an indication of such, but it could have been so interpreted, and on that possibility we must reverse for a new trial. Where there is simply a doubt, as here, that an accused has been prejudiced by a remark of the court, we must grant him a new trial.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
McCLOUD v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1976)…1968). Here, however, the only issue was whether to permit leading questions to be asked of an uncooperative witness. . Anderson v. State, 88 Fla. 93, 101 So. 202 (1924). . Clark v. State, 122 Fla. 810, 165 So. 44 (1935). . See Robinson v. State, 161 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Connley v. United States, 46 F. 2d 53 (9th Cir.1931). . We note there is no suggestion that Robinson’s deposition was improperly or unfairly taken, or that the facts adduced from him at that time we retained by prejudicial quest…
-
Watson v. State, 190 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1966)…and impartiality, prejudiced the jury and rendered the trial unfair to the defendants, contrary to the principles of law announced in Williams v. State (Fla.) 143 So. 2d 484; State ex rel. Arnold v. Revels, 113 So. 2d 218 (Fla.); Robinson v. State, 161 So. 2d 578 (Fla.); Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla.); Carr v. State, 136 So. 2d 28 (Fla.App.); Lester v. State, 37 Fla. 382, 20 So. 232; and Gans v. State (Fla.App.) 134 So. 2d 257. We have carefully evaluated the questions and the remarks of the tria…
-
Frierson v. State, 303 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Robinson v. State, Fla. App. 1964, 161 So. 2d 578; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 82; Baisden v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 194; Shif-rin v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 18; Lister v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So. 2d 238; Staten v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 697; Rollins v.…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hamilton v. State, 109 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)