Home/Supreme Court of Florida/State v. Castillo

State v. Castillo

486 So. 2d 565, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 113
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 20, 1986
Docket67046
StatusPublished
Cited by76 cases

This text of 486 So. 2d 565 (State v. Castillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Castillo, 486 So. 2d 565, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 113 (Fla. 1986).

Opinion

486 So.2d 565 (1986)

STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Jose CASTILLO, Respondent.

No. 67046.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 20, 1986.
Rehearing Denied May 7, 1986.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

Roy E. Black of Black & Furci and Bradley R. Stark, Miami, for respondent.

McDONALD, Justice.

We accepted jurisdiction in Castillo v. State, 466 So.2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), to resolve a conflict as to whether State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1984), applies to all cases pending on direct appeal at the time the decision became final. Generally, an appellant is entitled to the benefit of the law at the time of appellate disposition. Dougan v. State, 470 So.2d 697, 701 n. 2 (Fla. 1985). We see no exception to this principle in this case. Our comment in Neil that it should not be applied retroactively was intended to apply to completed cases.

A second issue is whether the objection to the improper use of peremptories must be raised prior to the jury being sworn. The answer is in the affirmative. In Neil we outlined the procedure required to preserve this issue. A timely objection must be raised and the state must be given an opportunity to demonstrate that the use of a peremptory was not motivated solely by race. Clearly, an objection must be raised prior to the swearing of the jury, and the issue being presented for the first time on a motion for mistrial, after the jury is sworn, is not timely.

Finally, the district court granted a new trial because of improper cross-examination of a witness. Without any apparent factual formulation the prosecutor inferred an illegal act on the part of the defendant's *566 witness, thus discrediting her in the eyes of the jury by improper means. We agree that this constituted reversible error.

That portion of the district court's opinion dealing with the Neil issue is quashed, but the granting of a new trial is approved.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Puryear v. State
891 So. 2d 2 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Lebron v. State
799 So. 2d 997 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)
Carter v. State
762 So. 2d 1024 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
King v. Moore
196 F.3d 1327 (Eleventh Circuit, 1999)
State v. Jones
581 N.W.2d 561 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1998)
Murphy v. State
708 So. 2d 612 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Bottoson v. Singletary
685 So. 2d 1302 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
State v. Holiday
682 So. 2d 1092 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)
Squire v. State
681 So. 2d 925 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Morris v. State
680 So. 2d 1096 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
State v. Robinson
676 A.2d 384 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1996)
Crevitz v. State
673 So. 2d 168 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Roberts v. State
665 So. 2d 333 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Hamilton v. State
642 So. 2d 817 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Marshall v. State
640 So. 2d 84 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
State v. Wilson
868 P.2d 656 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1993)
Suggs v. State
620 So. 2d 1231 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)
Williams v. State
619 So. 2d 487 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Pottgen v. State
616 So. 2d 1125 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Walker v. State
609 So. 2d 106 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
486 So. 2d 565, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-castillo-fla-1986.