Dowd v. State
227 So. 3d 194
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Calvin W. Dowd convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation and appealed his judgment and sentence.
- Dowd moved to suppress post-Miranda statements to sheriff's detectives, claiming police coercion and involuntariness.
- Dowd sought to exclude certain Williams-rule evidence; the trial court admitted it.
- After trial, an alternate juror told Dowd's family that jurors had discussed the case and selected a foreman early; Dowd moved under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.575 to interview jurors.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion as the statements were voluntary, allowed (or at least left admissible) the Williams evidence, and denied juror interviews after finding the alleged juror statements either inhere in the verdict or did not show a reasonable possibility of prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dowd) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of post-Miranda statements | Statements were product of coercive police tactics and thus involuntary | Totality of circumstances show confession voluntary; trial court properly analyzed factors cumulatively | Court affirmed denial of suppression; trial court correctly applied totality test and found statements voluntary |
| Admissibility of Williams-rule evidence | Admission was improper and prejudicial | If erroneous, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Court did not decide abuse of discretion but found any error harmless under DiGuilio and affirmed |
| Right to interview jurors under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.575 | Alternate juror’s report that jurors discussed the case and picked a foreman required juror interviews | Allegations either involved matters inhering in the verdict or did not show reasonable possibility of prejudice; preliminary showing required before interviews | Court affirmed denial of juror interviews; trial court properly required a preliminary showing of potential prejudice before permitting interviews |
| Standard and procedure for juror interviews | Once juror misconduct is alleged, interviews must be ordered and prejudice evaluated afterward | Court must first determine whether allegations raise a reasonable possibility of prejudice consistent with Maler and related precedent | Court rejected Dowd’s procedural argument; applied Maler standard and related caselaw to require sworn/factual showing sufficient to warrant interviews |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (governs admission of similar-fact evidence)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error standard in criminal cases)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation warnings rule)
- Maler v. Baptist Hospital of Miami, 579 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1991) (standard for permitting postverdict juror interviews)
- Ramirez v. State, 922 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (discussing juror interviews for premature deliberations)
- Crain v. State, 78 So. 3d 1025 (Fla. 2011) (application of Maler standard under rule 3.575)
- Johnson v. State, 804 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2001) (juror misconduct and no-impeachment rule discussion)
- Sheppard v. State, 151 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 2014) (premature deliberations requirement for juror interviews)
- Hamilton v. State, 574 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1991) (no-impeachment rule and limits on juror testimony)
- Devoney v. State, 717 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1998) (external influence and juror interview standards)