Ramirez v. State
132 So. 3d 849
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Ramirez was convicted of two counts of sexual battery on a person aged 12 to 18 by a person in familial or custodial authority; victim was his step-daughter.
- Ramirez received a sixty-year aggregate sentence.
- Ramirez appeals four trial-court rulings as errors.
- appellate review uses an abuse-of-discretion standard per Canakaris and related Florida authorities.
- Court affirms all challenged rulings; no abuse found.
- Harmless-error analysis applied to any potential errors, with sufficient remaining evidence supporting the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of a permissive lesser‑included instruction was error | State argues no basis for instruction given information did not allege forced acts or bodily harm. | Ramirez contends the court erred by not giving a lesser‑included offense instruction. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
| Whether prosecutorial rebuttal comments were improper | State contends rebuttal remarks were within latitude and invited in response to defense arguments. | Ramirez claims comments were not based on evidence in the record. | No abuse; comments permissible. |
| Whether exclusion of a defense diagram during deliberations was reversible | State argues diagram presented by defense could be excluded if cumulative or prejudicial; other testimony supported the layout. | Ramirez asserts the diagram should have been admitted as defense evidence. | Harmless error beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Whether denial of a sidebar conference on defense questioning of an expert was error | State contends no reversible error; relevance and preservation issues control. | Ramirez argues the trial court should have allowed a sidebar to address questions. | No abuse of discretion; issues not warranting reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Khianthalat v. State, 974 So.2d 359 (Fla. 2008) (information limitations govern permissive lesser‑included instructions)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error burden on State beyond reasonable doubt)
- Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 2006) (rebuttal arguments may respond to defense arguments)
- Linic v. State, 80 So.3d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (closing arguments may include logical inferences within record evidence)
- Jones v. State, 730 So.2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (closing arguments must be tethered to record evidence)
- Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1982) (limits of closing arguments in criminal trials)
- Patterson v. State, 128 Fla. 539, 175 So. 730 (Fla. 1937) (witness-made diagrams explaining testimony admissible under certain conditions)
- Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189, 84 So. 535 (Fla. 1920) (diagrams aiding testimony discussed in context of admissibility)