DeMartin v. State

• Decision Date: 30 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 4D14–451.,4D14–451.
• Citation: 188 So.3d 87
• Parties: Dennis DeMARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

188 So.3d 87

Dennis DeMARTIN, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D14–451.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 30, 2016.

Rehearing Denied April 27, 2016.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul E. Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

LEVINE

, J.

Appellant appeals the trial court's order finding him guilty of two counts of contempt. Appellant claims that the trial court erred in finding him in contempt for failing to divulge during voir dire that his ex-wife was arrested for DUI and for conducting a drinking experiment during the pendency of a trial in which appellant was a juror. We find that competent substantial evidence supports the contempt convictions and, as such, we affirm. We also affirm the other issues appellant raises without further comment.

Appellant was a juror in the case of State v. Goodman, No. 502010CF005829AXXXMB, in which John Goodman was convicted of DUI manslaughter and failure to render aid. Subsequently, the trial court vacated Goodman's convictions and granted a new trial based on appellant's misconduct, which involved conducting a "drinking experiment" and failing to disclose during voir dire that his ex-wife had been arrested for DUI. The trial court found that both of appellant's actions had "cumulative effects" that transformed Goodman's trial from "an imperfect but fair trial into a constitutionally impermissible proceeding." The trial court then issued an amended order directing appellant to show cause why he should not be held in indirect criminal contempt.

During the contempt trial, the state introduced into evidence excerpts from the Goodman trial, the transcript from the post-trial April 29, 2013 jury interview, as well as books appellant wrote. During the voir dire in the Goodman trial, the potential jurors were asked:

Is there anyone who either themselves, or a friend, or family member, or do you know a father or an uncle, that has had alcoholism be such a focus of their upbringing, or their lifestyle, that any involvement of alcohol or people drinking alcohol is going to be a problem in terms of listening to that sort of testimony?

The potential jurors were then asked again if anyone "has had an issue with alcoholism or alcohol in their family it affected?"

During the voir dire, the venire was also asked, "Has anyone in the panel themselves, close friend or family member or someone that affects you, ever been arrested, charged or convicted or accused of a crime?" One potential juror responded to this question by recounting a boss involved in trafficking cocaine, and another potential juror recounted a cousin arrested for DUI. Appellant responded by saying that he "had maybe three speeding tickets. Listening to all this, I must have had a very boring life." Appellant further stated, "I'm even trying to think of my family. I don't think any of my family had any problems." Appellant did not disclose that his first ex-wife was arrested for DUI in 1997.

During voir dire, the trial court told the jury venire, "No Googling, no Facebooking, no Twitter, no texting, no trying to educate yourself on this case." At the beginning of trial, the trial court told the jury, "[W]e want to make sure that any influences you have, any knowledge or information you learn about this case comes through this process, so we know what you know." The court also stated, "What the evidence is is what you will see in this courtroom" and that "[t]he basic rule is that jurors must decide the case only on the evidence presented in the courtroom."

The trial court further instructed the jury:

You must not do any research or look up any words or maps or names or anything else that may have anything to do with this case. This includes reading the newspaper, watching television, or using a computer or a cell phone or the Internet, or any other electronic device, or any means at all, to get information related to this case or the people or places involved in this case.

The court also stated, "Jurors must not conduct any investigation on their own." The trial court elaborated that

if you investigate or research or make any inquiries on your own outside of the courtroom, I will have no way to insure [sic] that they are proper or relevant or accurate responses to your inquiries. The parties likewise have no opportunity to dispute the accuracy of what you may find or to provide rebuttal evidence to it.... Non-court inquiries and investigations unfairly and improperly prevent the parties from having that opportunity of our judicial—that our judicial system promises.

If you become aware of any violations of these instructions or any other instructions that I give you in this case, you must tell me by giving a note to the bailiff and then he will advise me.

The trial court concluded that "[t]his case must be tried by you only on the evidence presented during the trial in your presence and in the presence of the defendant and the attorneys and me."

During the pendency of the Goodman trial, appellant began writing a book in which he discussed the trial testimony, as well as his experiences during the trial. The night before deliberations began, appellant wrote the following:

I spent most of the evening going over all my daily worksheets. I rechecked the evidence side and hear say [sic] side of the daily worksheets to be sure that I was ready before deliberation.

It was bothering me that if there was proof that if Mr. Goodman only had 3 or 4 drinks, how drunk would he be? How drunk would I be? I decided to see.

At 9pm I had a vodka and tonic, followed by another at 9:30pm and a third at 10pm. I went out and started to walk to the clubhouse which was two streets over in our complex. I walked around there for a short time and then decided to go back home. I was confused and when I realized where I was, I was on the east side of the clubhouse on a street leading to my ex girlfriends [sic] condo. I cut across the grass back to my street and finally returned to my condo and went to sleep.

When the alarm went off the next morning, I got up and felt relieved. The question in my mind the night before was answered to me. Even if a person is not drunk, 3 or 4 drinks would make it impossible to operate a vehicle. I got dressed and was in a fine frame of mind to go to deliberate the evidence we had.

Appellant wrote that during jury deliberations, other jurors felt that Goodman was not fit to drive after having three or four drinks. Appellant noted to himself that "I surely decided that the night before."

After a verdict was entered in the Goodman case, appellant wrote another book. In this book, appellant recounted responding to an accident scene where his wife had been arrested for DUI. Appellant wrote that his wife met another person while attending a DUI program and that her excessive alcohol use was the reason for their divorce.

In this second book, appellant recounted the drinking experiment, while discussing the contents of his first book:

The controversy was over my Chapter 9's last two paragraphs where I had 3 drinks of vodka the night before we were to deliberate on the evidence and vote guilty or not. I knew I had to vote guilty as he left the scene of the accident and did not call 911. But I was troubled with the 30 year sentence he would receive. Both Mr. Goodman and myself would probably be dead in 30 years when the sentence was completed. At least I felt I would be. So that is why I had the 3 drinks. I wanted to know if I would have all my faculties to act rationally after 3 drinks.

As I wrote in that book, I found that I would have had problems doing the right thing after 3 drinks. I felt that it was proven that he was drunk added with the medication that I knew he and My New Love Interest were taking, he would have problems remembering to do the right thing also.

During the contempt trial, the state produced evidence that appellant called his ex-wife during the Goodman trial to ask about her DUI. The ex-wife told an investigator that appellant knew about her arrest days or weeks after it occurred.

During the April 29, 2013 jury interview, appellant stated he knew his ex-wife was charged with DUI, but that he "blocked it out" and forgot it during voir dire. Although appellant claimed that he had medical issues that may cause him to forget, he admitted his book's representations about his ex-wife's DUI were accurate and that the DUI was something that really affected him.

During the contempt trial, the jury foreperson testified that appellant mentioned in...