Danny Caldevilla v. The State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 22, 2024
• Docket: 2022-0881
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 22, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D22-0881 Lower Tribunal No. F19-17098

Danny Caldevilla, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Warren v. State, 307 So. 3d 871, 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)

(finding no fundamental error occurred when trial court offered

“prosecution-friendly” hypotheticals during voir dire and stating, “We hasten

to add, however, that while a trial judge is tasked with explaining to jurors

the law they are to apply, the trial judge should rely upon, and seldom stray

from, Florida's Standard Jury Instructions. This should not be interpreted as

prohibiting a trial judge from using a hypothetical that properly explains the

law, but due care must be taken in the process.”); Kendle v. State, 255 So.

3d 400, 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (finding that comments made by the trial

court concerning the defendant’s right to remain silent “[fell] within the

realm of what [was] permitted, but [were] also necessary. Without such

cautionary instructions, the jurors would be free to infer or speculate that a

defendant who does not testify must surely be guilty, otherwise he would

take the stand in his own behalf.”); Moore v. State, 939 So. 2d 1116, 1118

(Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by

permitting hypothetical questions during voir dire and stating, “Hypothetical

questions, ‘designed to determine whether jurors could correctly apply the

law, are permissible.’ . . . The hypothetical questions did not pretry the

case, but tested the venire’s ability to accept both testimonial and physical

evidence.”) (quoting Williams v. State, 931 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA

2 2006)); Jones v. State, 216 So. 3d 742, 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“To

obtain a fair and impartial jury, and for ‘voir dire examination of jurors . . . to

have any meaning, counsel must be allowed to probe attitudes, beliefs and

philosophies for the hidden biases and prejudices designed to be elicited

by such examination.’”) (quoting Lowe v. State, 718 So. 2d 920, 923 (Fla.

4th DCA 1998)).