TYREL JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Jackson was convicted of burglary, sexual battery, and kidnapping. The appellate court affirmed his convictions but expressed concern about the trial court's improper comments regarding courtroom procedures and its decision to prevent transcription of evidence, which complicated appellate review.
The court affirmed Jackson's convictions. The trial court's comment did not constitute fundamental error as it was not a direct statement about guilt and any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence. The trial court's decision to prevent transcription, while problematic, did not require reversal under the harmless error analysis applicable to Bruton violations.
[1] A trial court's comment made in the jury's presence, which might be interpreted as an opinion on the defendant's guilt, does not constitute fundamental error if it is spe…
[2] A claim regarding an improper judicial comment is waived on appeal if the defendant does not contemporaneously object and move for a mistrial, unless the comment constitu…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it is speculation that the jury would interpret the trial court's comment as being one on appellant's guilt, as appellant suggests, and the comment does not rise to the level of fundamental error”
Establishes that the court's problematic comments did not constitute reversible error in the absence of a contemporaneous objection and failed to meet the fundamental error standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State introduced a taped statement of Jackson's codefendant as evidence at trial. Jackson objected to statements in the tape that implicated him i…
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 Appellate Review Of Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s convictions for burglary, sexual battery, and kidnaping. We write, however, to express our concern regarding certain comments that the trial court made in the jury’s presence.
During the trial, the State introduced the taped statement of one of appellant’s code-fendants into evidence. Immediately prior to the playing of the tape to the jury, the trial court stated:
I’ll direct the court reporter does not need to transcribe the tape or what’s on the tape and I know the appellate courts don’t like me to say that, but since the tape is in evidence and the appellate courts can get access to the tape and both of them, that I don’t think we need a transcript of it from this court reporter and I’ll direct that she does not have to take it down.
Appellant argues that this statement indicates a belief, by the trial court, in the guilt of appellant. There was no contemporaneous objection to the statement and any error was, therefore, waived unless it can be deemed to be fundamental error. See Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1535, 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998) (holding that claim regarding improper prosecutorial argument barred on appeal where the defendant did not contemporaneously object and move for mistrial and comments did not constitute fun damental error). In this case, it is speculation that the jury would interpret the trial court’s comment as being one on appellant’s guilt, as appellant suggests, and the comment does not rise to the level of fundamental error.
Furthermore, if there had been an objection and motion for mistrial, the comment would have been harmless error because the evidence of guilt in this case was overwhelming. We would, however, discourage all such comments in the future.
We also'do not understand the trial court’s reasoning for ordering the court reporter not to transcribe the tape. Appellant objected to certain statements of the codefendant in the tape which implicated appellant in the offenses in violation of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). After appellant objected, the tape was again played for the jury with the statements implicating appellant redacted from the tape. Appellant supplemented the record with a transcript of the redacted tape but was unable to provide us with a copy of the tape as it was originally played to the jury.
The trial court’s instruction that the tape not be transcribed saved neither money nor labor, and it made it extremely difficult for this court to engage in an intelligent review of the record.
Appellant argues that we should reverse his convictions on this very basis. In a different situation, the fact that the trial court prevented a defendant from providing a complete transcript of all the evidence presented to the jury may require reversal.
However, in this case, as noted, appellant challenged the redacted portions of the tape on Bruton grounds and such a violation is subject to a harmless error analysis. See Farina v. State, 679 So. 2d 1151 (Fla.1996), receded from, on other grounds, Franqui v. State, 699 So. 2d 1312 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1582, 140 L.Ed.2d 796 (1998). Appellant’s own statements, introduced into evidence during the State’s case, placed him at the scene and a friend testified that he told her he had raped the victim with a plunger.
Affirmed.
PARKER, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W. (Senior) Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jassan v. State, 749 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…raneous objection, however, we are required to hold that this issue has not been preserved for appellate review. See Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1083, 118 S.Ct. 1535, 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998); Jackson v. State, 723 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Recognizing this procedural impediment, Mr. Jassan’s counsel further argues that Mr. Jassan is entitled to a new trial because the error is fundamental. Where fundamental error exists, an appellate court may grant a new trial. S…
-
Greene v. State, 795 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…For instance, in the present case, there were several objections made during the playing of the tape. Without the reporting of the tape as the objections are being made, the objections may not be placed in context. As was noted in Jackson v. State, 723 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), such an omission could require reversal if the proceedings could not be adequately reconstructed for appeal in a particular case. Indeed, in the instant case that issue exists. Although the tape has subsequently been transcribed…
-
Chavers v. State, 775 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…Accordingly, we affirm. In this case, Mr. Chavers gave a recorded statement to the police. After introducing the tape into evidence, the State played it for the jury. The court reporter, however, failed to transcribe the tape. In Jackson v. State, 723 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), where the trial court had directed the court reporter not to transcribe a taped statement played for the jury, this court noted that such an omission could require reversal in a different case. See also Lawrence v. State, 632 So.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Oba Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1997)
- Franqui v. State (Fla. 1997)
- Farina v. State, 679 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1996)