LEONARD FELDMAN AND PAUL CASTILLO, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Leonard Feldman and Paul Castillo appealed their conviction and 50-year sentences for robbery, challenging the jury impaneling procedure and the admission of evidence regarding an assault on the victim's parents. The Florida appellate court affirmed their convictions, finding no reversible error in either the jury selection process or the admission of the assault evidence.
The court found no reversible error in the jury impaneling procedure, as there was no showing that the special venire was improperly formed, that any jurors taken were improper, or that defendants exhausted their peremptory challenges. The court also held that evidence of the assault on the victim's parents was properly admissible as it had a connection to the robbery and was necessary for the victim to give an intelligent account of the crime.
“It does not appear that the special venire used over the objection of defendants was not legally formed, or that any of the jurors taken from it were improper jurors, or that the defendants exhausted their peremptory challenges and were obliged to take an objectionable juror because they had no further peremptory challenges.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing jury impaneling errors—absence of reversible error if the venire was legally formed and proper jurors were selected.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFeldman and Castillo were jointly charged with and convicted of robbery. During the robbery, they entered the victim's room and beat the victim's pare…
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 Res Gestae cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, Leonard Feldman and Paul Castillo, were jointly charged and convicted of robbery. Each was sentenced to a term of 50 years in the state penitentiary.
Appellants seek reversal of the judgments and sentences on numerous grounds. One of appellants’ contentions is that the trial court erred in impaneling a jury when it (1) proceeded with impaneling a jury over objections of the defendant before the sheriff’s returns were filed; (2) refused the defendants ten peremptory challenges from the special panel of jurors; (3) used talesmen from the first panel before the second panel was exhausted and refused to excuse a venireman for cause.
The record shows that the jury panel was exhausted with the close of the first day of the trial. The next morning the court announced that during the night he and the sheriff had selected additional persons to form the panel and that these persons were now in court. The defendants asked if the sheriff’s returns had been filed and learned that they had not. The defendants objected to the impaneling of the jury before the returns had been filed. The objection was overruled at' that point and at numerous other stages of the trial when the objection was reasserted.
We have considered appellants’ objections to the procedure followed during the impaneling and selecting of the jurors and find no reversible error. It does not appear that the special venire used over the objection of defendants was not legally formed, or that any of the jurors taken from it were improper jurors, or that the defendants exhausted their peremptory challenges and were obliged to' take an objectionable juror because they had no further peremptory challenges. Bailey v. State, 155 Fla. 597, 21 So.2d 217; Penton v. State, 64 Fla. 411, 60 So. 343; McRae v. State, 62 Fla. 74, 57 So. 348; §§ 932.22, 40.23, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Appellants’ second point presents for our determination the propriety of the court’s denial of appellants’ motion for mistrial which was raised when reference was made by the prosecutor and a witness to the beating given to the parents of the victim by the defendants when they entered the victim’s room immediately subsequent to the robbery. Appellants argue that such evidence was highly prejudicial and unrelated to the proof of the crime, and, therefore, inadmissible. We can not agree.
We think that the assault on the victim’s mother and father immediately following the robbery has a connection with the crime for which the defendants were being tried. It was necessary for these facts to be related, in order for the victim to give an intelligent account of the crime. Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654; Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; Green v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 190 So.2d 42.
We have considered all of appellants’ points and contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel, and have found no reversible error. See: Sears v. United States, 265 F.2d 301 (5th Cir.1959); Child v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 148 *23So.2d 526; Farrior v. State, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 148; Martin v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 194 So.2d 291; Brown v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 192 So.2d 794; Clark v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 353; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 224; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 513; § 917.-01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; and § 920.02(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Accordingly, the judgments and sentences are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 220 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…e of the incident for which he was arrested. The defendant was not charged with being a rioter. Under the factual circumstances of this case, the testimony that a riot was in progress was relevant and admissible. See Feldman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 21; Green v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 42. We have examined the defendant’s second point for reversal and find that there was substantial, competent evidence in the record to sustain the judgment of conviction. Furthermore, while we do not neces…
-
Deliford v. State, 505 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…argument, that the auto theft evidence was not otherwise admissible, as such evidence was plainly relevant in order to give an intelligent account of the crime charged. See Kinchen v. State, 297 So. 2d 341, 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Feldman v. State, 212 So. 2d 21, 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Homer v. State, 149 So. 2d 863, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Second, we reject the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying a defense motion for a mistrial based on the prosecuting attorney’s closing argument…
-
Frederiksen v. State, 312 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…the same sequence of events and the testimony with respect to the theft, as admitted, was necessary to give a complete and intelligent account of the crime charged. See Horner v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 149 So. 2d 863; Feldman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 21. [*219] In addition, we examined defendant’s remaining point on appeal in light of controlling principle of law and have determined that no reversible error has been made to appear. For the reasons cited hereinabove, the judgment and conviction app…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Nickels v. State, 106 So. 479 (Fla. 1925)
- Simpson v. State, 164 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- M'Rae v. State, 62 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1911)
- Farrior v. State, 76 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1954)
- Miller v. State, 134 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Bailey v. State, 155 Fla. 597 (Fla. 1945)
- Martin v. State, 194 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Tiny Glen A. Sears v. United States, 265 F.2d 301 (5th Cir. 1959)