Gormady v. State
2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 652
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Gormady, a passenger in a truck stopped for an expired tag, was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), and possession of drug paraphernalia after police found a handgun, methamphetamine, and pipes bundled in a T-shirt in the passenger-side area.
- Detective Bradley Johnson was the State’s key witness; he testified to finding the gun and Gormady’s incriminating statements after reading Miranda rights. Defense challenged the detective’s credibility based on inconsistencies between his testimony and prior reports and his interview/reporting practices.
- During deliberations the jury requested a recording/transcript of the defendant’s interview as described by the detective; the court agreed to a read-back of the detective’s testimony.
- The trial court told the jury a full read-back would be available, but then allowed the jury to stop the read-back midstream; the jury halted the read-back after much of direct examination had been read but before relevant cross-examination was read.
- Gormady was convicted; on appeal he argued the partial read-back was misleading and unduly emphasized the State’s version, requiring reversal and a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Gormady’s Argument | State’s / Dissent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing the jury to stop a read-back so it heard a partial read-back that excluded cross-examination was reversible error | Partial read-back deprived the defense of cross-examination that impeached the detective and unduly emphasized the State’s direct testimony | Court and dissent: jury may specify and stop read-back; the jury’s request was discrete and stopped after the portion they sought (the interview) was read | Reversed — trial court erred; partial read-back unduly emphasized State’s version; new trial ordered |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by limiting defense opening statement | Defense: restriction improperly limited defense themes and fair notice to jury | State: limits were not reversible because defense made points in closing | No reversible error on appeal regarding opening statement |
| Whether cross-examination of crime-scene tech on effects of wrapping items was outside scope | Defense: implied it was improper | State: cross-examination was within scope | No abuse of discretion found |
| Whether an off-the-cuff explanation of reasonable doubt to venire was preserved for appeal | Gormady: judge’s explanation injected error in jury selection | State: issue not preserved / harmless | Not preserved for appellate review; caution to trial courts issued |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullins v. State, 78 So.3d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (partial read-back can mislead by emphasizing testimony favorable to the State)
- Hazuri v. State, 91 So.3d 836 (Fla. 2012) (courts should inform jury of read-back availability and not mislead jurors about it)
- Garcia v. State, 644 So.2d 59 (Fla. 1994) (partial read-back is improper if misleading or unduly emphasizes particular statements)
- Cole v. State, 701 So.2d 845 (Fla. 1997) (partial read-back acceptable when directly responsive, not misleading, and does not unduly emphasize)
- Anton v. State, 700 So.2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (upholding discrete partial read-back where no relevant cross-examination existed)
- Perez v. State, 949 So.2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (cross-examination especially necessary when witness is the State’s key witness)
- State v. Garcia, 326 P.3d 354 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014) (reading only direct testimony without cross can be prejudicial when cross discredited the witness)