Louisy v. State
| Decision Date | 14 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-3714,94-3714 |
| Citation | 667 So.2d 972 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D437 Bernard LOUISY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County; Richard B. Burk, Judge.
Peter Grable, P.A. of Peter Grable Law Office, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Patricia A. Ash, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant, Bernard Louisy, appeals his convictions for various sex crimes involving a child. We reverse because we agree with appellant that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's request to re-open his case so that he could re-take the witness stand to present testimony crucial to his defense.
The proffered testimony, if believed by the jury, would have provided an alternative reason for the victim's vaginal injuries. 1 Other than the physical evidence of the injuries, the case was essentially a matter of credibility between the defendant and the victim. The proffered testimony was not elicited when appellant first testified because trial counsel became "distracted" and "forgot" to make the necessary inquiry. Although the state had rested, the jury had not been charged and no closing argument had been made. Thus, the case was not "technically closed." State v. Ellis, 491 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
While we fully appreciate the trial judge's frustration with "forgetful" trial counsel, without the opportunity to present the testimony requested, appellant was denied a fair trial through no fault of his own.
Although the decision to allow a case to be reopened involves sound judicial discretion not usually interfered with on the appellate level, Burk v. State, 497 So.2d 731, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), a denial will be reversed where the request is timely made and the jury will be deprived of evidence which might have had a significant impact upon the issues to be resolved.
Delgado v. State, 573 So.2d 83, 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) ().
For the purpose of avoiding error on re-trial, we note that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offenses of lewd assault, battery and assault which the defense requested. Although the state's evidence was strong that appellant's conduct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vazquez v. State
...not wish to assert a defense and thus lose the right to open and close final argument. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.250. In Louisy v. State, 667 So.2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), we reversed a trial court's refusal to reopen the defense to present crucial evidence, saying that: "Although the decision......
-
Knight v. State, 3D03-2967.
...to allow re-cross-examination is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hurst v. State, 825 So.2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Louisy v. State, 667 So.2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing defense counsel from re-crossing Ceocarelli. Def......
-
Palos v. State
...Knight v. State, 919 So. 2d 628, 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing Hurst v. State, 825 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ; Louisy v. State, 667 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ). The prosecutor in this case did not raise any novel issues on redirect and Guillen Bueso did not testify in a manner in......
-
Register v. State
...that the reasons supporting the defendants' motions were both reasonable and clearly set forth. For example, in Louisy v. State, 667 So.2d 972, 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the defendant sought to reopen his case because defense counsel had failed to elicit certain "crucial" questions when the ......