CAROL GARCIA, APPELLANT,
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.
Carol Garcia was convicted of manslaughter alongside two co-defendants after being tried jointly for the murder of Ivan R. Rousseau. The court erred in admitting confessions of co-defendants that inculpated Garcia without allowing her to cross-examine them, violating her constitutional rights under Bruton v. United States.
The trial court committed error by admitting the confessions of co-defendants Roman and Stetzler that inculpated Garcia, despite the court's limiting jury instruction. Under Bruton v. United States and Roberts v. Russell, such admission violates the defendant's constitutional rights and requires reversal and a new trial.
“The trial Court admitted Roman's and Stetzler's statement inculpating Carol Garcia, notwithstanding the fact that Carol Garcia did not testify.”
Establishes the central problem: co-defendants' confessions inculpating Garcia were admitted without the co-defendants testifying or being subject to cross-examination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarcia and three other defendants were indicted for first degree murder of Ivan R. Rousseau by striking and beating him. Garcia, along with co-defenda…
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 Severance Of Defendants cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant, Carol Garcia, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment. Defendant and three other defendants, to-wit, Norma A. Roman, Barbara Ann Stetzler and Margaret Pearl Wolford, were indicted for first degree murder. The indictment alleged that Carol Garcia along with the aforementioned other defendants, unlawfully and from a premeditated design to effect the death of Ivan R. Rousseau, did kill and murder the said Rousseau by striking and beating' him. Prior to trial, defendant Garcia and the other defendants moved for a severance but a separate trial was denied and all four defendants were tried together. The jury found the defendant Garcia and defendants, Roman and Stetzler, guilty of manslaughter but acquitted Wolford, the other defendant. The first trial of these defendants had ended in a mistrial.
Carol Garcia filed her motion for new trial alleging that the court erred in denying her motion for severance and a separate trial. This appeal was then filed.
The point on appeal is whether or not the Court erred in denying the motion for severance where the prosecution introduced in evidence confessions of the co-defendants, Roman and Stetzler, inculpating this defendant and depriving her of her constitutional rights when said defendants did not testify.
A review of the trial proceedings, reveals that the defendant Carol Garcia and the co-defendants, Roman and Stetzler, did not take the witness stand. The trial Court admitted Roman’s and Stetzler’s statement inculpating Carol Garcia, notwithstanding the fact that Carol Garcia did not testify. The Court instructed the jury that each statement could only be considered against the defendant making the statement and no defendant’s statement could be considered against any other defendant. This trial was held prior to the rendering of the decision in the case of Bruton v. United States, 1968, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476. Upon consideration of the Bruton decision, we conclude that error was committed despite the trial court’s instructions. According to Bruton v. United States and Roberts v. Russell, 1968, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed. 1100, which holds that Bruton is applicable to a court proceeding and retroactive, this cause must be reversed for a new trial. See also Schneble v. State, Fla.1967, 201 So.2d 881; Schneble v. State, Fla., 215 So.2d 611; Stubbs v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 228.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Garcia, 240 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1970)…cumulative. The decisions in each of the cases below are quashed with directions to reinstate the judgments and sentence in each. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur. ERVIN, C. J., dissents with opinion. . Garcia v. State, 226 So. 2d 17 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969). . Roman v. State, 226 So. 2d 19 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969); and Stetzler v. State, 226 So. 2d 18 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969). . Garcia v. State, 226 So. 2d 17, 18 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969). . 199 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1967). .…1 / 2
-
Stetzler v. State, 226 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…[*19] LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge. Reversed and remanded for new trial on authority of Garcia v. State of Florida, Fla.App., 226 So. 2d 17, decided this date and being the same case. Reversed and remanded for new trial.…
-
Roman v. State, 226 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge. Reversed and remanded for new trial on authority of Garcia v. State of Florida Fla.App., 226 So. 2d 17, decided this date and being the same case. Reversed and remanded for new trial.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1968)
- Schneble v. State, 201 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1967)
- Schneble v. State, 215 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1968)
- Stubbs v. State, 222 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)