State v. Castillo
| Decision Date | 20 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 67046,67046 |
| Citation | 486 So.2d 565,11 Fla. L. Weekly 113 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 113 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jose CASTILLO, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.
Roy E. Black of Black & Furci and Bradley R. Stark, Miami, for respondent.
We accepted jurisdiction in Castillo v. State, 466 So.2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), to resolve a conflict as to whether State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984), applies to all cases pending on direct appeal at the time the decision became final. Generally, an appellant is entitled to the benefit of the law at the time of appellate disposition. Dougan v. State, 470 So.2d 697, 701 n. 2 (Fla.1985). We see no exception to this principle in this case. Our comment in Neil that it should not be applied retroactively was intended to apply to completed cases.
A second issue is whether the objection to the improper use of peremptories must be raised prior to the jury being sworn. The answer is in the affirmative. In Neil we outlined the procedure required to preserve this issue. A timely objection must be raised and the state must be given an opportunity to demonstrate that the use of a peremptory was not motivated solely by race. Clearly, an objection must be raised prior to the swearing of the jury, and the issue being presented for the first time on a motion for mistrial, after the jury is sworn, is not timely.
Finally, the district court granted a new trial because of improper cross-examination of a witness. Without any apparent factual formulation the prosecutor inferred an illegal act on the part of the defendant's witness, thus discrediting her in the eyes of the jury by improper means. We agree that this constituted reversible error.
That portion of the district court's opinion dealing with the Neil issue is quashed, but the granting of a new trial is approved.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robinson
...Pacee v. State, 306 Ark. 563, 567, 816 S.W.2d 856 (1991); Tursio v. United States, 634 A.2d 1205, 1209-10 (D.C.1993); State v. Castillo, 486 So.2d 565 (Fla.1986); State v. Sparks, 257 Ga. 97, 98, 355 S.E.2d 658 (1987); People v. Evans, 125 Ill.2d 50, 61-62, 125 Ill.Dec. 790, 530 N.E.2d 1360......
-
State v. Wilson
...v. Harris, 157 Ariz. 35, 754 P.2d 1139, 1140 (1988) (en banc); Pacee v. State, 306 Ark. 563, 816 S.W.2d 856, 859 (1991); State v. Castillo, 486 So.2d 565, 565 (Fla.1986); Greene v. State, 260 Ga. 472, 396 S.E.2d 901, 902 (1990); People v. Wright, 218 Ill.App.3d 764, 161 Ill.Dec. 444, 578 N.......
-
Alen v. State
...This court recognizes those terms and also uses the term "Hispanic." We make no attempt to distinguish the words.2 Clarified, State v. Castillo, 486 So.2d 565 (Fla.1986), and clarified, State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1219, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988)......
-
Busby v. State
...use of peremptory challenges preceded those at the federal level. See State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984), clarified, State v. Castillo, 486 So.2d 565 (Fla.1986). This Court has expanded the Batson/Neil doctrine to include other protected classes of venirepersons to ensure that perempto......