Bell v. State
108 So. 3d 639
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Bell was charged with lewd and lascivious molestation of a victim under 12 by an offender 18 or older and with failure to appear at a court hearing.
- The First District Court of Appeal affirmed Bell’s convictions and sentences, addressing prosecutorial comments about the victim’s age during closing argument.
- Bell contended multiple closing-argument comments impermissibly referred to his right to testify or improperly shifted the burden of proof; he also challenged voir dire questions.
- Voir dire included questions about whether a child’s testimony alone would be enough evidence, and Bell objected but did not renew objections pre-trial; trial court allowed voir dire to proceed.
- On review, the Florida Supreme Court resolved conflicts with Shelton v. State, disapproved part of Shelton, and held some comments improper but not preserved as reversible error, thus affirming the First District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did comments 2–4 improperly reference Bell’s silence? | Bell argues comments 2–4 implied failure to testify. | State argues some comments were not about Bell’s silence and several were invited responses or not impermissible. | Some comments were improper burden-shifting; however, objections not preserved and no fundamental error. |
| Was comment 1 a proper or improper comment on the burden of proof? | Bell asserts comment 1 commented on the defendant’s silence/burden. | State contends comment 1 discussed evidence for an element, not Bell’s silence. | Comment 1 not an improper comment on silence; not burden-shifting. |
| Was comment 3 improper as a comment on Bell’s failure to testify? | Bell claims comment 3 treated Bell’s not guilty plea as sole evidence of innocence. | State argues witness motive to lie and lack of Bell’s testimony were not silencing, but legitimate argument. | Comment 3 improper as comment on silence; court disagrees with Shelton's narrowing and finds error. |
| Was comment 2 improper as a comment on Bell’s right to testify? | Bell asserts comment 2 highlights Bell’s absence from testimony. | State argues it referred to the absence of Bell’s testimony and is not silence commentary. | Comment 2 improper; preserved issues not properly preserved for appeal; reviewed for fundamental error. |
| Did voir dire questions improperly condition the jury or pre-commit to verdicts? | Bell maintains voir dire impermissibly referred to Bell’s guilt and preconditioned verdicts. | State asserts questions sought to uncover bias toward child witnesses, not to commit jurors. | Voir dire questions not error, and not fundamental error under preserved-context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2000) (prohibits comments on failure to testify; supports analysis of silence comments)
- Evans v. State, 838 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 2002) (state may comment on the jury’s duty to analyze evidence)
- Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1991) (prohibition on burden-shifting comments)
- Pope v. State, 679 So.2d 710 (Fla. 1996) (voir dire not implicating right to testify when focused on witness credibility)
- Barnette v. State, 768 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2000) (voir dire context regarding child witnesses not improper)
- Smith v. State, 358 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (comment on defense not constituting failure to testify when properly framed)
- Wade v. State, 41 So.3d 857 (Fla. 2010) (fundamental error standard; cumulative error consideration)
- Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2000) (reiterated standard for comments on failure to testify)