James Warmington v. State of Florida
149 So. 3d 648
Fla.2014Background
- Warmington was charged with first-degree theft (> $100,000) stemming from a loan/deal with the Pistols and Sardina.
- During trial, Detective Abolsky testified about Warmington’s pretrial interview and that Warmington could not produce certain loan documents.
- Defense objected that the detective’s questions impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to Warmington.
- The Third District affirmed, holding the questioning did not shift the burden because it concerned historical facts and pretrial events.
- The Florida Supreme Court concluded the testimony did impermissibly shift the burden and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, quashing the Third District’s decision and ordering a new trial.
- Remand for a new trial was ordered; the State was upheld to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt in the new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the State’s questioning impermissibly shift the burden? | Warmington argues it did shift the burden to produce exculpatory evidence. | State contends the testimony involved historical facts pretrial and did not shift burden. | Yes, it impermissibly shifted the burden. |
| Was the burden-shifting error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | Not harmless; the error could have affected the verdict. | Error was harmless given other evidence. | No; the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Does the Court have jurisdiction to review this discretionary decision and conflict with other districts? | Warmington argues jurisdiction exists due to express and direct conflict. | State disputes the existence of express direct conflict. | Court concludes it has jurisdiction and resolves the conflict in favor of reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. State, 660 So.2d 257 (Fla.1995) (burden-shifting when defense failed to request DNA testing)
- Ramirez v. State, 1 So.3d 383 (Fla.4th DCA 2009) (burden shifting from failure to produce photographs/medical reports)
- Miele v. State, 875 So.2d 812 (Fla.2d DCA 2004) (burden shifting from failure to present evidence refuting an element)
- Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181 (Fla.1991) (due process requires proof of all elements beyond reasonable doubt; no burden-shift)
- Gore v. State, 719 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1998) (prosecutor cannot invite conviction for reason other than proven elements)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986) (harmless error analysis framework)
- Ealy v. State, 915 So.2d 1288 (Fla.2d DCA 2005) (examples of burden-shifting principles in Florida appeals)
- Rivera v. State, 840 So.2d 284 (Fla.5th DCA 2003) (burden-shifting concepts in collateral context)