Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

547 So. 2d 347

Docket No. 88-923.

Reyes v. State

Carlos REYES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 15, 1989.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-08-15

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 2009

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[A] trial court should avoid making any remark within the hearing of the jury that is capable directly or indirectly expressly, inferentially, or by innuendo of conveying any intimation as to what view he takes of the case or that intimates his opinion as to the weight, character, or credibility of any evidence adduced.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Stone v. State, State v. Fullwood

Relies on 492 So. 2d 1329 - Florida Bar v. Wolf · Lester v. State · 488 So. 2d 52 - Peek v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-08-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Clayton R. Kaeiser, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before NESBITT, BASKIN and COPE, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Carlos Reyes appeals his conviction for lewd assault and sexual battery. Reyes alleges the trial court's comments deprived him of a fair trial. We reverse.

¶6"Great care should always be observed by the judge to avoid the use of any remark in the hearing of the jury that is capable, directly or indirectly, expressly, inferentially, or by innuendo, of conveying any intimation as to what view he takes of the case, or that intimates his opinion as to the weight, character, or credibility of any evidence adduced." Lester v. State,37 Fla. 382, 387-88, 20 So. 232, 234 (Fla. 1896); Peek v. State,488 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1986); Whitenight v. Int'l Patrol & Detective Agency, Inc.,483 So.2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied,492 So.2d 1333 (Fla. 1986); Keane v. State,357 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Abrams v. State,326 So.2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). In the case before us, the trial judge departed from his impartial role and commented on the testimony *348 of witnesses. The court's comments were especially damaging because the outcome of the case depended on the credibility of the witnesses. Thus, we hold that the curative instruction did not prevent the trial court's comments from depriving Reyes of a fair trial.

¶7Our resolution of this issue makes it unnecessary for us to reach the remaining points on appeal.

¶8Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

/547/so2d/347 · .json · Public domain