Louidor v. State, 3D12–3113.
| Decision Date | 25 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D12–3113.,3D12–3113. |
| Parties | Roseline LOUIDOR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Stephen J. Weinbaum, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jay E. Silver, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before WELLS, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
Roseline Louidor, the defendant below, appeals her conviction and sentences for manslaughter, aggravated child abuse, and child neglect. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm without prejudice to allow the defendant to file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Following the death of two-year-old Daquan Davis, Louidor was arrested and charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and child neglect.1
Louidor, who was friends with Daquan's mother, Cherelle, had been caring for Daquan for several days prior to Daquan's death. Louidor maintained that Cherelle retrieved Daquan from Louidor's care, and kept Daquan for the weekend prior to his death. Louidor insisted that when Daquan returned from his weekend under Cherelle's care, Daquan was bruised, sick, and listless.
Cherelle denied taking Daquan home with her, and asserted that Daquan was with Louidor and Louidor's boyfriend2 for ten days before Daquan was rushed to the hospital. Cherelle testified that she had visited Daquan during that ten-day period, but had never removed Daquan from Louidor's care, and that Daquan was fine when she completed her visit.
Prior to her arrest, Louidor was interrogated by three police detectives for six to eight hours over a two-day period; though she admitted to spanking the child, Louidor steadfastly denied ever kicking, punching, or otherwise injuring him.
The interrogation was videotaped and memorialized on a DVD. Defense counsel stipulated to the admission and playback of the DVD at trial, provided that certain portions, wherein police referred to Louidor's boyfriend, be redacted.3 , 4 Louidor's attorney made no other objection to the introduction of the interrogation DVD.
Over the course of the trial, the interrogation DVD was played to the jury on four different occasions. Defense counsel objected only twice—both times to portions of the DVD wherein the detectives mentioned statements made by Louidor's boyfriend—asserting the State's failure to redact those portions was a Bruton violation. Defense counsel moved for mistrial on this basis, which was denied. After both instances, the court instructed the jury that the statements made by the detectives regarding Louidor's boyfriend were not admitted for the truth of what the boyfriend actually said to police.5
During the multiple instances that the DVD was played for the jury, each of the three detectives repeatedly and adamantly told Louidor that they knew Louidor was guilty and that she had killed Daquan. At no time did the defense object to the introduction of these statements. In response to the detectives' aggressive interrogation of her, Louidor persistently refused to confess to the crimes for which the detectives were accusing her of committing.
The following are illustrative excerpts from Louidor's interrogation:
.
, was he the only one there? Were you the only one there?
The jury found Louidor guilty of manslaughter (a lesser-included offense to the charge of first-degree murder, Count I), aggravated child abuse with an aggravated battery (Count II), and child neglect with great bodily harm (Count III). She was sentenced to twenty-five years on Counts I and II and fifteen years on Count III, all sentences running concurrently.
Louidor concedes that her trial lawyer did not object to those portions of the DVD during which the detectives repeatedly told Louidor that they knew she was guilty and knew she had killed Daquan. Nevertheless, Louidor contends, for the first time on appeal, that this evidence was erroneously admitted and was so prejudicial that it amounted to fundamental error.
The State concedes that these portions of the DVD should not have been played for the jury but contends this error was not fundamental. Further, the State argues that defense counsel's stipulation to this evidence being admitted was a strategic decision.
While we concur that the interrogating officers' opinions as to Louidor's guilt were objectionable and should not have been admitted, in light of defense counsel's stipulation to the admission and play-back of the DVD, as well as defense counsel's affirmative reliance on the DVD throughout the trial, we find that the error was invited by the defense, and therefore any claim of fundamental error was waived.
As explained in more detail below, we affirm without prejudice to Louidor filing a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
The Florida Supreme Court has made it clear that a police officer's opinion as to the guilt of the accused is inadmissible. Jackson v. State, 107 So.3d 328 (Fla.2012) ; Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074 (Fla.2000).
In Jackson,6 where the pernicious effect of this type of evidence was most recently addressed by the Florida Supreme Court, defense counsel moved pretrial to exclude a two-hour videotaped interrogation in which police officers repeatedly told Jackson they knew he was guilty. The trial court denied the motion, and, although the videotape was shortened to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pineda v. State, 3D15–2542
...advantage of the error on appeal.’ ") (quoting Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co. , 800 So.2d 197, 202 (Fla. 2001) ); Louidor v. State , 162 So.3d 305, 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ("We need not reach the issue of whether the admission of the objectionable evidence constituted fundamental error in th......
-
Gonzalez v. State
... ... trial that reversal is required even absent a contemporaneous ... objection." Louidor v. State, 162 So.3d 305, ... 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). "[F]or an error to be so ... fundamental that it can be raised for the first time on ... ...
-
McSweeney v. State, Case No. 2D18-2217
...by defense counsel, and the Third District determined that the defense invited the error. Id. at 916 ; see also Louidor v. State, 162 So. 3d 305, 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (determining that error was invited when the defense stipulated to the admission of the evidence and relied on it); Buggs ......
-
Rivera v. State
...Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1) was invited error more appropriately addressed in a rule 3.850 motion. See Louidor v. State , 162 So. 3d 305, 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). We agree that the basis for a $223 "MM cost" is unclear from the record and thus remand for clarification. Colebrook v......