Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

486 So. 2d 565

486 So.2d 565

11 Fla.L.Weekly 113

Docket No. 67046.

State v. Castillo

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jose CASTILLO, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided March 20, 1986.

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1986.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1986-03-20

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“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.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Murphy v. State

Relies on 457 So. 2d 481 - State v. Neil · 470 So. 2d 697 - Dougan v. State · Castillo v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-03-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently February 2005 · most notably 522 So. 2d 18 - State v. Slappy (1988), Williams v. State (1991)

70 state decisions

510198619902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

¶2Roy E. Black of Black & Furci and Bradley R. Stark, Miami, for respondent.

¶3McDONALD, Justice.

¶4We 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.

¶5A 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.

¶6Finally, 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 *566 witness, thus discrediting her in the eyes of the jury by improper means. We agree that this constituted reversible error.

¶7That portion of the district court's opinion dealing with the Neil issue is quashed, but the granting of a new trial is approved.

¶8It is so ordered.

¶9BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

/486/so2d/565 · .json · Public domain