Eiffel DeCastro v. the State of Florida, 3D2023-1523

Eiffel DeCastro was convicted after a trial during which, midway, he moved to disqualify the trial judge based on alleged bias.
DeCastro alleged the judge made an ex parte phone call to the State Attorney's Office during the victim’s testimony and showed partiality towards State witnesses.
The trial judge disputed these allegations on the record, denying both the recusal and mistrial motions.
Later, DeCastro filed a written Motion to Disqualify, which the judge denied without further comment.
The appeal focused solely on the trial judge’s response and handling of the disqualification motion.
The central legal issue became whether the judge erroneously denied the disqualification motion by disputing the facts alleged in it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge should have been disqualified after disputing allegations in a motion to disqualify	DeCastro argued the judge exceeded his authority by refuting allegations instead of only assessing legal sufficiency, requiring disqualification	The State asserted the grounds for disqualification were legally insufficient and no bias existed	The court held the judge erred by disputing factual allegations rather than focusing on legal sufficiency, requiring reversal and a new trial
Whether the error was harmless	DeCastro argued the error was not harmless as the victim’s credibility was central and could have been impacted	The State failed to argue harmless error or prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt	The appellate court found the error was not harmless due to the importance of credibility and possible impact on the verdict

Brewer v. Hughes, 390 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (judges may not comment on or refute allegations of bias in motions to disqualify)
Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978) (disputing allegations in a motion to disqualify is itself grounds for disqualification)
Chiu v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 254 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (judges exceeding proper inquiry in disqualification motions warrants prohibition)
Davis v. State, 347 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 2022) (harmless error analysis applies to erroneous denial of disqualification motions)
State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (state must prove error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Knowles v. State, 848 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2003) (appellate courts must independently analyze harmlessness regardless of parties’ briefs)
Mackenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990) (judges refuting disqualification allegations require disqualification)