Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 20 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D04-2757.,1D04-2757. |
| Citation | 906 So.2d 1149 |
| Parties | John L. JOHNSON, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Jamie Spivey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant, John L. Johnson, Sr., challenges his convictions for burglary and theft, contending that the trial court's conduct in forcing him to appear before the jury, bound and gagged, constituted a fundamental violation of his right to fair trial. We disagree and affirm.
After the court repeatedly warned appellant that the court would not tolerate future disruptions during the course of his trial, and would gag and handcuff him in the presence of the jury if he violated the court's order, and secured his promise that no such untoward actions would occur, appellant, unable to restrain himself, interrupted his counsel's examination of a witness and undertook the examination. The court excused the jury and imposed the restraints previously threatened. The defense did not object to such procedure and the court followed its action with a cautionary instruction to the jurors informing them they were to decide the case on its facts and evidence and not be influenced by the measures taken. After the witness completed her testimony, the gag and handcuffs were removed from appellant for the remainder of the trial.
Our survey of out-of-state law on the subject1 reveals that reviewing courts assess the use of such restraints by the abuse-of-discretion standard, and generally affirm their use under circumstances where a defendant's behavior is repeatedly and sufficiently disruptive, where the trial court instructs the jurors that the means employed should not figure into their determination of a verdict, and where it appears that the court's action was the most appropriate remedy under the circumstances. See generally Avant v. State, 528 N.E.2d 74 (Ind.1988); Molina v. State, 971 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Ct.App.1998); Commonwealth v. Kenney, 317 Pa.Super. 175, 463 A.2d 1142 (1983). As the United States Supreme Court explained:
We believe trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, stubbornly defiant defendants must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case. No one formula for maintaining the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyche v. State
... ... 313, 317, 41 S.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654 (1921) (holding that consent was coerced when officers told defendant's wife they came to search the premises and she allowed them to enter). Similarly, consent has been deemed to be coerced when the police demand entry onto private premises. See Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948) (holding that when entry is "demanded under color of office" and consent is given "in submission to authority rather than as an understanding and intentional waiver of a constitutional right," consent is not voluntary) ... ...
-
Wyche v. State, 1D03-5211.
... ... See generally People v. Santistevan, 715 P.2d 792 (Colo.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 965, 107 S.Ct. 468, 93 L.Ed.2d 412 (1986)(misrepresentation by police about the purpose of a search may weigh against a finding of consent but does not invalidate consent); State v. Johnson, 253 Kan. 356, 856 P.2d 134 (1993)(police could obtain consent to search by claiming they were looking for a third party); State v. Watson, 416 So.2d 919 (La.1982)(police may search suitcase for drugs by obtaining owner's consent to search suitcase for identification); Commonwealth v. Morrison, 275 ... ...
-
Powell v. Sec'y
...Petitioner's intent to disrupt the proceedings. Id. The court cited England v. State, 940 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2006) and Johnson v. State, 906 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) to support its action. Id. at 13. Petitioner then listed the reasons he believed his counsel to be ineffective, noting t......