Valderrama v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Valderrama v. State

816 So. 2d 1143, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5218, 2002 WL 662693

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 2002

DocketNo. 4D00-3831

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 816 So. 2d 1143 (Valderrama 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

Valderrama v. State, 816 So. 2d 1143, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5218, 2002 WL 662693 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

WARNER, J.

Appellant raises three issues in this appeal from his convictions for sexual battery and lewd assault. He first claims that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the lewd assault charge because the corpus delicti was not established before his confession was admitted. However, he failed to object to the admission of the confession on that ground, and his motion for judgment of acquittal did not alert the trial court to this argument. Thus, it is not preserved for appeal. See J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).

Second, he argues that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when the child victim referred to additional, uncharged, and previously undisclosed acts of sexual intercourse. While generally implicating a defendant in other crimes is presumptively prejudicial, see Pastor v. State, 792 So.2d 627, 630-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), where the testimony is unsolicited, inadvertent, and isolated, a trial court is not required to declare a mistrial. See Rivera v. State, 745 So.2d 343, 344-45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). That is the case with the inadvertent testimony from the child victim in this case.

Finally, appellant maintains that the court erred in denying his motion to strike the venire after many of the members revealed that they had been victims of sexual abuse as children. A trial court’s decision on whether to dismiss a venire panel is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Brower v. State, 727 So.2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). While there were many members of the panel who expressed reservations about serving on this jury because of the nature of the charges, many others indicated an ability to be impartial even after hearing the other member’s personal experiences. We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in this case. See Bauta v. State, 698 So.2d 860, 861-62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Affirmed.

FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

WARNER, J.

Appellant raises three issues in this appeal from his convictions for sexual battery and lewd assault. He first claims that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the lewd assault charge because the corpus delicti was not established before his confession was admitted. However, he failed to object to the admission of the confession on that ground, and his motion for judgment of acquittal did not alert the trial court to this argument. Thus, it is not preserved for appeal. See J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).

Second, he argues that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when the child victim referred to additional, uncharged, and previously undisclosed acts of sexual intercourse. While generally implicating a defendant in other crimes is presumptively prejudicial, see Pastor v. State, 792 So.2d 627, 630-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), where the testimony is unsolicited, inadvertent, and isolated, a trial court is not required to declare a mistrial. See Rivera v. State, 745 So.2d 343, 344-45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). That is the case with the inadvertent testimony from the child victim in this case.

Finally, appellant maintains that the court erred in denying his motion to strike the venire after many of the members revealed that they had been victims of sexual abuse as children. A trial court’s decision on whether to dismiss a venire panel is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Brower v. State, 727 So.2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). While there were many members of the panel who expressed reservations about serving on this jury because of the nature of the charges, many others indicated an ability to be impartial even after hearing the other member’s personal experiences. We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in this case. See Bauta v. State, 698 So.2d 860, 861-62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Affirmed.

FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

816 So. 2d 1143, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5218, 2002 WL 662693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valderrama-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack