Cajuste v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cajuste v. State

874 So. 2d 728, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8089, 2004 WL 1253238

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 2004

DocketNo. 3D02-3081

StatusPublished

This text of 874 So. 2d 728 (Cajuste v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cajuste v. State, 874 So. 2d 728, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8089, 2004 WL 1253238 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Cajuste appeals his convictions for first degree murder, attempted murder, and attempted armed robbery.

We conclude that the trial court’s rulings on voir dire questions were within the court’s discretion, as was the court’s refusal to grant additional peremptory challenges. See Hooper v. State, 476 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Fla.1985); Parker v. State, 456 So.2d 436, 442 (Fla.1984).

We conclude that there was no impermissible shifting of the burden of proof. See Caballero v. State, 851 So.2d 655, 660 (Fla.2003); Evans v. State, 838 So.2d 1090, 1094-95 (Fla.2002) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 121, 157 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003). The evidentiary rulings were within the court’s discretion. To the extent it could be said that the prosecutor argued that defendant-appellant Cajuste was fleeing from the scene of the crime, this was a fair comment on the evidence and was not objected to at trial.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Michael Cajuste appeals his convictions for first degree murder, attempted murder, and attempted armed robbery.

We conclude that the trial court’s rulings on voir dire questions were within the court’s discretion, as was the court’s refusal to grant additional peremptory challenges. See Hooper v. State, 476 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Fla.1985); Parker v. State, 456 So.2d 436, 442 (Fla.1984).

We conclude that there was no impermissible shifting of the burden of proof. See Caballero v. State, 851 So.2d 655, 660 (Fla.2003); Evans v. State, 838 So.2d 1090, 1094-95 (Fla.2002) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 121, 157 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003). The evidentiary rulings were within the court’s discretion. To the extent it could be said that the prosecutor argued that defendant-appellant Cajuste was fleeing from the scene of the crime, this was a fair comment on the evidence and was not objected to at trial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 So. 2d 728, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8089, 2004 WL 1253238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cajuste-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack