It’s a beautiful day here in Jupiter, Florida, so I thought I’d pass along a few notes about some criminal appeals opinions issued by my local appellate court, the Fourth DCA.

First, South Florida’s criminal defense lawyers who have videos from the scene allegedly depicting their client may wish to review the case of Charles v. State, 4D09-4191, as the 4th DCA reversed Charles’ conviction and remanded the case for a new trial based on an error with regard to the video.  According to the opinion, the State elicited testimony, over objection, from the Detective that he believed that Charles was the person depicted on video.  However, the Fourth held that the Detective’s testimony improperly invaded the province of the jury because he admitted that he was originally unable to identify the person in the video.  In finding that reversible error occurred, the Fourth relied on Ruffin v. State, 549 So.  2d 250 (Fla.  5th DCA 1989).

Second, in McLaughlin v. State, 4D10-2255, the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court allowed the prosecutor to erect a physical shield in the courtroom, presumably so that the child victims would not have to see McLaughlin when they testified.  The Court found that the shield was not authorized by any statute, and that it’s presence compromised McLaughlin’s right to a fair trial.  The Fourth stated that rather than allowing the use of the shield, the trial court should have instead inquired as to whether the victims would suffer emotional or mental harm due to the presence of McLaughlin, and if so, allowed the child victims to testify outside the courtroom via closed circuit television.

Finally, in Hernandez v. State, 4D10-4186, the Court got a little creative with its writing!  The case involves something pretty routine, the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress.  After an ordinary legal discussion of the facts and applicable standards, the Court closed with the following:

But one must wonder why, after twice telling the police to get a warrant, the defendant would invite law enforcement on his property, put the dog away, and kick down his own door to allow law enforcement to have a good look at his indoor marijuana grow room—providing sufficient probable cause for a search warrant.  As Arsenio Hall used to say, “Things that make you go Hmmm!”

Arsenio Hall?   “Hmmm!?”