Jassan v. State, 97-01221.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-01221.,97-01221. |
| Citation | 749 So.2d 511 |
| Parties | Alejandro JASSAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Marisa Tinkler Mendez, Coral Gables, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Patricia E. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Following a jury trial, Alejandro Jassan was convicted of two counts of sexual battery on a child under the age of twelve years. Mr. Jassan asserts the trial court committed three errors during his trial. We affirm his conviction without discussion of two issues and review only his primary contention that it was error to allow a videotape of the child victim's statement to go to the jury during their deliberations.
After closing argument, the trial court inquired of both counsel whether it would be appropriate to provide the jurors the exhibits admitted at trial for use in their deliberations. Among the exhibits specifically identified by the trial court to counsel was exhibit seven, a videotape of the alleged child victim's statement. Neither party objected—in fact, the defense stipulated —to the delivery of the videotape to the jury room. Mr. Jassan now claims the providing of the videotape was fundamental error.
cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1083, 118 S.Ct. 1535, 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998); Jackson v. State, 723 So.2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Recognizing this procedural impediment, Mr. Jassan's counsel further argues that Mr. Jassan is entitled to a new trial because the error is fundamental. Where fundamental error exists, an appellate court may grant a new trial. See Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-Florida, N.A., 666 So.2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
. A fundamental error is one that undermines the confidence in the trial outcome and goes to the very foundation of a case. Often, it is the equivalent of a denial of due process. See Hopkins v. State, 632 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1994). Cases reviewing this type of error, however, such as Young and Tullis v. State, 716 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), have held that delivery of the victim's videotaped statement to the jury may be harmful and prejudicial but not fundamental error. We reach the same conclusion and decline to award a new trial on this basis.
Finally, Mr. Jassan has asked us to determine, in the absence of a motion for post-conviction relief, that Mr. Jassan's trial counsel was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...if an errant instruction is fundamental error." (quoting Dempsey v. State, 72 So.3d 258, 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) )); Jassan v. State, 749 So.2d 511, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ("A fundamental error is one that undermines the confidence in the trial outcome and goes to the very foundation of a c......
-
Howard v. State
...the deficient performance and prejudice prongs of Strickland have been met require factual development. See, e.g., Jassan v. State, 749 So. 2d 511, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ("[W]e determine that these issues should be raised by an appropriate motion for post-conviction relief. Upon a proper r......
-
Corzo v. State, 2D01-5017.
...assistance of counsel may not be raised on direct appeal. See, e.g., Bruno v. State, 807 So.2d 55 (Fla.2001); Jassan v. State, 749 So.2d 511, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Caison v. State, 695 So.2d 872, 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). On rare occasions, the appellate courts make an exception to this rul......
-
Sneathen v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...of the child's interview to the jury is not fundamental error, but neither is it harmless. Id. at 968; see Jassan v. State, 749 So. 2d 511, 512 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) ("[D]elivery of the victim'svideotaped statement to the jury may be harmful and prejudicial but not fundamental error.")......