Louidor v. State
162 So. 3d 305
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Roseline Louidor was charged with first‑degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and child neglect after two‑year‑old Daquan’s death; jury convicted her of manslaughter, aggravated child abuse, and child neglect and sentenced her to concurrent prison terms.
- Police videotaped two days of aggressive interrogation (6–8 hours) during which three detectives repeatedly told Louidor they knew she was guilty; Louidor consistently denied harming the child.
- Defense counsel stipulated to admission and playback of the interrogation DVD at trial, subject to redaction of statements implicating Louidor’s non‑testifying boyfriend (Bruton issue); counsel did not otherwise object to detectives’ repeated statements of guilt.
- The DVD was played to the jury multiple times during trial and sent back to the jury room during deliberations.
- On appeal Louidor argued the detectives’ opinions of her guilt were inadmissible and, unpreserved at trial, constituted fundamental error; the State conceded the statements should not have been played but argued the error was not fundamental and that counsel’s stipulation was strategic.
- The court held the statements were inadmissible but found the error was invited by defense counsel’s stipulation and affirmative reliance on the tape, so any claim of fundamental error was waived; affirmed convictions but allowed leave to seek relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of detectives’ opinions of defendant’s guilt | State: DVD admissible as interrogation evidence (but conceded some portions improper) | Louidor: detectives’ repeated statements of guilt were inadmissible opinion testimony | Court: such opinion testimony is inadmissible under Florida law (Jackson/Martinez) but was played here |
| Fundamental error from unpreserved admission | State: error not fundamental; defense stipulated and relied on DVD | Louidor: unpreserved error was so prejudicial it was fundamental and requires reversal | Court: declined to find fundamental error because defense invited the error by stipulation and reliance on the DVD |
| Applicability of invited‑error doctrine | State: defendant invited the error by stipulation and argument | Louidor: stipulation does not equal invited error; admission still violated fairness | Court: invited‑error doctrine applies when party affirmatively requests/stipulates and then relies on evidence; waiver applies |
| Remedy and collateral relief | State: urged affirmance on appeal | Louidor: sought direct reversal | Court: affirmed on direct appeal but permitted Louidor to pursue a 3.850 motion to develop record on whether counsel’s stipulation was strategic or ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 107 So.3d 328 (Fla. 2012) (police officers’ repeated expressions of belief in defendant’s guilt are inadmissible and highly prejudicial)
- Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 2000) (witness opinion of defendant’s guilt is inadmissible)
- Sheppard v. State, 151 So.3d 1154 (Fla. 2014) (applied Jackson/Martinez in fundamental‑error context; not every unobjected interrogation remark is fundamental error)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (non‑testifying codefendant’s confession implicating defendant violates Confrontation Clause)
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (invited‑error doctrine bars appellant from challenging a tactical decision to introduce evidence)
- Tumblin v. State, 29 So.3d 1093 (Fla. 2010) (police testimony carries undue weight with juries and opinions on guilt are disfavored)
- Odeh v. State, 82 So.3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (definition of fundamental error as undermining trial validity)