123 So. 3d 1164
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant was charged with burglary of a structure while armed, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment, and grand theft of an automobile.
- Victim testified about the burglary, appellant's custody with two knives, and the sequence of events including tying the victim and the later police encounter.
- Appellant testified to a different version, claiming permission to enter the establishment and that he did not disclose a tryst to law enforcement to avoid admitting paying for sex.
- A juror asked whether the State had to prove appellant was armed within the structure; the court referred back to the burglary instruction and responded to a juror question.
- During sentencing, the court stated it was taking into account appellant’s trial testimony that he lied on the stand, which the court later emphasized as improper influence on sentencing.
- The court held the errors constituted fundamental error, reversing and remanding for a new trial and resentencing before a different judge for judicial economy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror question interpreted as comment on evidence | Walden argues the judge's response could be seen as comment on the evidence or guilt. | Walden contends the court's remark was inadvertent but still prejudicial. | Fundamental error; new trial required. |
| Sentencing based on defendant's perjury | Walden contends sentencing relied on perjury during trial. | Walden contends perjury is not a proper sentencing factor. | Fundamental error; resentencing before a different judge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacques v. State, 883 So.2d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (judge cannot comment on weight or credibility of evidence; can require new trial if unfavorable remark)
- Rutledge v. State, 1 So.3d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (new trial warranted when doubt exists about prejudice from judge's remark)
- Thomas v. State, 838 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (prejudice from judicial remarks can require new trial)
- Josephs v. State, 86 So.3d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (perjury is not a proper sentencing factor; errors require remedy)
- Mathew v. State, 837 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (fundamental error occurs if trial error undermines validity of verdict)
- Rimmer v. State, 825 So.2d 304 (Fla. 2002) (foundation for evaluating when error affects trial's integrity)
- Jones v. State, 612 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 1992) (defined framework for fundamental error review when no contemporaneous objection)
- Ross v. State, 386 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 1980) (standard for evaluating improper judicial comments)