State v. Castillo

State v. Castillo, 486 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1986)

Court: Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided: March 20, 1986
Docket: No. 67046
Judges: McDonald
Citations: 486 So. 2d 56511 Fla. L. Weekly 113

Cited by 76 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion

486 So.2d 565 (1986)

STATE of Florida, Petitioner,

Jose CASTILLO, Respondent.

No. 67046.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 20, 1986. Rehearing Denied May 7, 1986.

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.

McDONALD, Justice.

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 *566 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.

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

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(requiring an objection "during the jury selection process itself")

State v. Wilson, 868 P.2d 656 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993)

Cited by 76 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Murphy v. State708 So. 2d 612 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Joiner v. State618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993)
Floyd v. State569 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1990)
Bowden v. State588 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1991)
Kibler v. State546 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1989)
Blackshear v. State521 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1988)

Most recent

Kamari Lowery v. State of FloridaNo. 3D2023-1957 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2026)
Busby v. State894 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2005)
Puryear v. State891 So. 2d 2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
Lebron v. State799 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2001)
Carter v. State762 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
King v. Moore196 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 1999)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)	477
	Dougan v. State, 470 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1985)	33
	Castillo v. State, 466 So. 2d 7 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)	7

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list