D'AMBROSIO v. State, 98-2032.
Decision Date | 28 May 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 98-2032.,98-2032. |
Citation | 736 So.2d 44 |
Parties | Michael J. D'AMBROSIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Law Offices of Steven G. Mason, Orlando, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction for capital sexual battery. The evidence is that appellant raped his daughter numerous times and was charged and convicted of this one rape. Because of his age and her age he was sentenced to life in prison. § 794.011(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1997).
We most reluctantly reverse the conviction and remand this case for a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. In sending the case back for a new trial we note that the judge erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding the age of the defendant. Because the age, over 18, of the defendant is one of the elements to be proved to establish the crime charged, capital sexual battery, it must be included within the instructions, along with the proof. We also note, but do not decide as clear error, that an instruction on attempted sexual battery should have been given. The evidence did not eliminate the need for this requested instruction. Wilson v. State, 622 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993),approved, 635 So.2d 16 (Fla.1994) ( ); Randolph v. State, 591 So.2d 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991),dismissed, rev. den., 634 So.2d 626 (Fla.1994) ( ); Pride v. State, 511 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Henry v. State, 445 So.2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also Gillespie v. State, 440 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983),
rev. den., 475 So.2d 222 (Fla.1985) () .
This is a case like many which seem to be appearing in appellate courts for these past few years and about which all appellate judges, including those on our supreme court, are becoming more and more concerned. See e.g. Ruiz v. State, 24 Fla.L. Weekly S157, ___ So.2d ___, 1999 WL 176049 (Fla. April 1, 1999). It is also one of those cases where the various district courts, and various members thereof, are divided on a proper resolution of the ever-increasing problem. That division has to do with the concept of fundamental error; namely, when does prosecutorial misconduct justify the grant of a new trial in the absence of a proper objection below.1 Some of the cases on point are as follows: Henderson v. State, 727 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ( ); Ross v. State, 726 So.2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ( ); Bell v. State, 723 So.2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ( ); Freeman v. State, 717 So.2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ( ); DeFreitas v. State, 701 So.2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ( ); Knight v. State, 672 So.2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ( ); State v. Fritz, 652 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ( ); Ryan v. State, 457 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984),pet. for rev. den., 462 So.2d 1108 (Fla.1985) ( ).
A reading of these cases, and of other cases on point, shows that sometimes a new trial is required, sometimes not. In Ruiz, the most recent one from the supreme court, the answer is not crystal clear on this question because that case held, as have others from all the courts that "When the properly preserved comments are combined with additional acts of prosecutorial overreaching..." a new trial is required. As is usual the appellate courts do not lay much of the blame on the trial judge in those cases. But it goes without saying that had the trial judge stepped in and put an end to the bad behavior there may not have been a need for another trial. See Judge Schwartz's comment in Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So.2d 850, 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. den., 488 So.2d 832 (Fla.1986) (Schwartz) ("it is no longer—if it ever was—acceptable for the judiciary to act simply as a fight promoter, who supplies an arena in which parties my fight it out on unseemly terms of their own choosing"); contra Murphy v. Int'l Robotics Systems, Inc., 710 So.2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA),
rev. granted, 722 So.2d 193 (Fla.1998).
In this case the problem of unobjected-to error, fundamental error, is not as much a problem as in others because at the beginning of final arguments at trial the judge instructed the attorneys "I don't like it when lawyers object during closing arguments." While this admonition did not prevent objections it certainly may have had a limiting effect. It could have kept objections out. Some of the improper comments made in this case were:
It is improper to make derogatory comments about opposing counsel. It is improper for a lawyer to give a personal opinion as to either the justness of the cause or the guilt or innocence of the accused. R. Regulatory Fla. Bar 4-3.4(e).
Repeatedly referring to the defendant's defense as innuendo, speculation and "a sea of confusion" that defense counsel "prays you will get lost in" is an improper attack of the defense and defense counsel....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Childers v. State
...v. State, 804 So.2d 373, 375-376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Lavin v. State, 754 So.2d 784, 785-786 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); D'Ambrosio v. State, 736 So.2d 44, 47-48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Pacifico v. State, 642 So.2d 1178, 1183-84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Conley v. State, 592 So.2d 723, 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 19......
-
Childers v. State
...v. State, 804 So.2d 373, 375-376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Lavin v. State, 754 So.2d 784, 785-786 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); D'Ambrosio v. State, 736 So.2d 44, 47-48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Pacifico v. State, 642 So.2d 1178, 1183-84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Conley v. State, 592 So.2d 723, 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 19......
-
Merck v. State
...counsel was throwing whatever they could against the wall to see what "sticks," constituted fundamental error); D'Ambrosio v. State, 736 So.2d 44, 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (finding fundamental error due to several improper comments, including comment that defense counsel was trying to inundat......
-
Thornton v. State
...and impermissible. See Barnes v. State, 743 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA),review denied, 744 So.2d 457 (Fla.1999); D'Ambrosio v. State, 736 So.2d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Del Rio v. State, 732 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Lewis v. State, 711 So.2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Cochran v. State, 711 ......
-
Prosecutorial Misconduct During Trial: Lessons Learned from State v. Pabst and Other Recent Cases
...remedy might be pursuing disciplinary action against an attorney committing prosecutorial misconduct. 79. See, e.g., D'Ambrosio v. State, 736 So.2d 44, 48 (Fla. App. 1999) (reversing conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct and declaring that "the buck stops here" while imploring the Flor......
-
Unpreserved issues in criminal appeals.
...(Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1999) (Harris, J., concurring specially). (32) E.g., Townsend, 635 So. 2d at 959-60. (33) E.g., D'Ambrosio v. State, 736 So. 2d 44, 46-47 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1999) (collecting cases); Hugh, 751 So. 2d at 719-22 (Harris, J., concurring specially); Henry, 743 So. 2d at 54 (Harri......