Hayes v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2663
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- The State sought involuntary civil commitment of Hayes as a sexually violent predator under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act; the jury found him to be an SVP and the trial court committed him to DCF pending change in his mental state.
- Hayes previously pled guilty to lewd assault related to his stepson's case; the State had a capital sexual battery charge in 1992, but the court allowed evidence only of the lewd assault conviction at the civil commitment trial.
- During trial, the State referenced the lewd assault conviction in opening and closing statements despite a motion in limine, and the court overruled objections to those references.
- Two exhibits marked for identification but not admitted into evidence were reviewed by two jurors; the trial court denied relief from judgment.
- Dr. Morin testified about a concern that Hayes fantasized about killing again, including a remark that there was a chance he had already killed a child; the court sustained objections and gave a curative instruction.
- The court ultimately found overwhelming evidence Hayes suffers a mental abnormality or personality disorder and is likely to commit acts of sexual violence if not confined, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether opening/closing remarks violated the in limine order | Hayes argues the comments referenced penetration despite the order. | State contends remarks were improper but not prejudicial. | Improper but harmless error; no reversal. |
| Whether inclusion of inadmissible exhibits requires relief from judgment | Exhibits marked for identification, reviewed by jurors, tainted verdict. | Exhibits had no impact on outcome; trial court acted within discretion. | Harmless error; relief from judgment denied. |
| Whether the denial of a mistrial was appropriate given a doctor’s remark about killing a child | Remark implicated murder and could prejudice the jury. | Curative instruction sufficiently cured potential prejudice. | Error cured by curative instruction; denial of mistrial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merck v. State, 975 So.2d 1054 (Fla.2007) (trial court has broad discretion over opening/closing; harmless error rule applicable)
- Merastar Ins. Co. v. Webb, 932 So.2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (pretrial order violation not necessarily new trial absent prejudice)
- Leyva v. Samess, 732 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (pretrial order violation may be harmless if no prejudice)
- Pascale v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 656 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (harmless error standard in civil cases; totality of evidence reviewed)
- Hulick v. Beers, 7 So.3d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (curative instruction can cure mistrial prejudice)
- Perez v. State, 919 So.2d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (mistrial properly denied when curative instruction renders issue harmless)
- Kroner v. Singer Asset Fin. Co., L.L.C., 814 So.2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (trial court broad discretion in relief from judgment matters)
- Bush v. State, 809 So.2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (unauthorized materials reviewed by jurors; effect on verdict considered)