Jonavon D. Gaines v. State
155 So. 3d 1264
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Victim robbed at gunpoint outside a Vero Beach convenience store; robber described to 911 as a black male, later described to officers as 16–17, short cropped hair, wearing a long-sleeved dark shirt, and reported to have fled on foot.
- Within ~30 minutes and about two blocks away, officers stopped Gaines in a gray van solely because he fit the BOLO (young black male with short cropped hair); no vehicle description or observed suspicious conduct justified the stop.
- At the scene the victim first viewed another man in a show-up, then identified Gaines at a second show-up; officers found the victim’s ID, dark clothing, eyeglass case, and a handgun in a backpack in Gaines’s vehicle.
- Gaines gave a recorded custodial interview after Miranda warnings; Detective Jones repeatedly told Gaines he was lying and guilty and said there was ‘more than sufficient evidence’ to convict.
- Trial court admitted the unredacted interrogation tape (with detective’s opinions) and denied Gaines’s motion to suppress the evidence seized after the stop; jury convicted Gaines of robbery with a firearm and he received a lengthy prison sentence.
- The Fourth District reversed, ordering suppression of evidence obtained from the stop and a new trial because the BOLO was too vague to justify the stop and the unredacted tape improperly invaded the jury’s province.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gaines) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of stop/detention based on BOLO | BOLO plus proximity in time/place and victim’s additional description provided reasonable suspicion to stop a matching person/vehicle | BOLO lacked specificity (no vehicle, route, or reliable identifying details); stopping a van solely because occupant matched a generic description was unsupported | Stop was invalid; BOLO too vague to justify investigatory stop; suppression warranted |
| Admissibility of unredacted taped interview (detective opinion) | Detective’s accusatory statements are interrogation techniques and contextualize defendant’s responses; admissible to probe reactions and credibility | Repeated officer opinions of guilt and veracity invaded the jury’s province and were prejudicial; tape should be redacted | Admission was error: detective’s opinions were prejudicial, did not elicit incriminating responses, invaded jury’s role; not harmless — new trial required |
| Bailiff’s alleged improper communications with jury | N/A at trial/appeal (State would defend verdict) | Gaines argued bailiff misconduct warranted new trial | Court did not address due to reversal on prior grounds (left unresolved) |
Key Cases Cited
- Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993) (establishes well-founded, articulable suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
- Jackson v. State, 107 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 2012) (interrogation admissibility; probative value vs prejudicial effect of officer opinions)
- Rodriguez v. State, 948 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (BOLO lacking vehicle/direction did not justify stop of car)
- Roundtree v. State, 145 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (officer’s repeated guilt opinions improperly invade jury’s province)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error burden on State to prove error did not contribute to verdict)