Rolle v. State
215 So. 3d 75
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Jan. 8, 2008 an armed assailant shot and killed an off-duty police officer, wounded Wesner Senobi, and shot at Susie Agenor; police later recovered an AK-47 and casings.
- Victims initially identified Ricardo Ajuste from a photo lineup; Ajuste was arrested but later released after Detective Stein ruled him out; defendant Andrew Rolle was then arrested and indicted for first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder.
- At trial three witnesses testified that Rolle admitted involvement: (1) Ryan Stubbs (saw Rolle upset about a stolen gun; Rolle later confessed to shooting), (2) John Blanchard (gave Rolle a ride; saw Rolle take an AK-47 from trunk and heard shots; Rolle confessed next day), and (3) Norris McDowell (said Rolle confessed in jail).
- Defense argued police arrested the wrong person (Ajuste) and opened the door to testimony explaining why Ajuste was released; defense rested without calling witnesses.
- Jury convicted Rolle of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and attempted second-degree murder; the trial court imposed lengthy prison sentences and Rolle appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rolle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lead detective impermissibly opined on guilt | Trial testimony explaining why Ajuste was released was permissible and responsive to defense theory that police arrested wrong person | Detective Stein improperly commented on Rolle’s guilt by saying Ajuste was not involved | Preserved only partially; even if preserved, no improper opinion—detective explained why Ajuste was released and defense opened the door |
| Whether a mistrial was required when prosecutor asked if another detective was fired for fabricating evidence | Question was harmless because objection was sustained and court gave curative instruction | Question implied police misconduct and prejudiced Rolle, requiring mistrial | No abuse of discretion; objection sustained before answer and curative instruction given |
| Admissibility of victims’ out-of-court statements (hearsay) via Detective Stein | Statements were admissible (or harmless) and largely cumulative of admitted evidence | Introduction of hearsay through detective was improper and prejudicial | Senobi’s statement admissible as excited utterance; any error as to Agenor was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Limiting cross-examination of Stubbs about nature of pending charges | Defense was allowed to elicit bias (pending charges, no deal, no expectation of benefit); specific charge inquiry into heroin possession was collateral and properly limited | Court improperly prevented showing motive to lie by barring nature of pending charges | No abuse: court permitted questioning about pending charges and benefits; even if error, harmless given corroborating evidence and prior consistent statements |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Connell v. State, 480 So. 2d 1284 (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Anderson v. State, 841 So. 2d 390 (standard of review for mistrial rulings)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (abuse of discretion definition)
- Martinez v. State, 761 So. 2d 1074 (prohibition on witness opinions of defendant’s guilt)
- Breedlove v. State, 580 So. 2d 605 (limits on cross-examination and use of pending charges to show bias)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (harmless error standard for constitutional and nonconstitutional errors)
- Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403 (right to show bias by impeaching pending charges)
- Tompkins v. State, 502 So. 2d 415 (trial court’s discretion to limit scope of cross-examination)