ROLANDO DEL SOL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant has standing to challenge the arbitrary exclusion of jurors of any race, and a trial judge's comments on witness credibility constitute reversible error.
The defendant alleged systematic exclusion of black jurors from his criminal trial. The trial court also made comments on witness credibility during t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Systematic Exclusion Of Jurors cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A defendant, whatever his race, has standing to challenge the arbitrary exclusion of members of any race for grand or petit jury service. Castillo v. State, 466 So. 2d 7, 8 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) following Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972). Defendant Rolando Del Sol was not afforded a proper opportunity to pursue his allegation as to the systematic exclusion of black jurors from his criminal trial as required by State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984). We therefore reverse Del Sol’s conviction and sentence.
We find error also in the trial court’s comments upon the credibility of various witnesses during trial. The firmly established rule in Florida is that the trial judge should avoid making directly to or within the hearing of the jury, any remark which is capable of conveying directly or indirectly, expressly, inferentially, or by innuendo, any intimation as to what view he or she takes of the case or as to what opinion the judge holds concerning the weight, character, or credibility of any evidence adduced. Parise v. State, 320 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); see also Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1958); Seward v. State, 59 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1952); Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447, 147 So. 897 (1933).
Because our holding conflicts with Kibler v. State, 501 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), we certify a conflict therewith so as to pair this case for review with the latter. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1972)
- Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1933)
- Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1958)
- Seward v. State, 59 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1952)
- Kibler v. State, 501 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Myron J. Singer v. Estelle, 320 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Carter v. Gottleb, 466 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)