In JOHNSON v. STATE, No. SC09-966 (Fla. Oct. 7, 2010), prior to deliberations the trial judge instructed the jury, over objection, that it could not have any testimony read back. That instruction was clearly error; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.410 provides that juries may have testimony read back. The Court held that such error, if preserved, is per se reversible because it is impossible to determine the effect of the erroneous instruction on the jury without engaging in speculation. Therefore a reviewing court is unable to conduct a harmless error analysis.
In STATE v. MCFADDEN, No. SC09-1755 (Fla. Oct. 7, 2010), the Defendant was charged with three felony counts arising out of an armed robbery. At trial, the defense called the Defendant's sister, who testified that there had never been a gun in the house she shared with the Defendant. In her deposition, the same witness was not asked and made no claims regarding whether there had ever been a gun in the house, or whether she had ever reported a gun being in the house. In rebuttal the State called a sheriff's deputy to testify regarding a prior inconsistent verbal statement the Defendant's sister had made, to the effect that the sister had spoken with him on the day before the armed robbery to report her concern about a shotgun the Defendant was keeping in their house. The defense immediately objected to that testimony, but the trial court overruled the objection and allowed the deputy to testify regarding the prior conversation.
The Court held that Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(b)(1)(B) does not require the State to disclose to a defendant an oral, unrecorded witness statement if that statement does not materially change a prior recorded statement previously provided to the defendant by the State. The Court reasoned that on its face, the rule does not include unrecorded oral statements. An exception requires disclosure when the oral statement materially alters a prior written or recorded statement previously provided by the State to the defendant. Here, however, the oral statement that the Defendant kept a shotgun in the house was not a material departure from any previous was certainly not a radical change in testimony, as was the basis for the exception requiring disclosure.
In RANSONE v. STATE, No. SC09-2084 (Fla. Oct. 7, 2010), the Court addressed the proper award of presentence jail-time credit. The Court held that when a defendant has been arrested and incarcerated on unrelated charges and ultimately receives multiple sentences, the defendant is not entitled to presentence jail-time credit on both sentences if the sentence for the unrelated charge is to be served consecutively. The court reasoned that when a defendant receives concurrent sentences, his pre-sentence jail time is credited toward all concurrent sentences, but when a defendant does not receive concurrent sentences, jail time may be credited toward only one sentence.
In IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES - REPORT NO. 2010-03, case No. SC10-636 (Fla. Oct. 7, 2010), amended several standard criminal jury instructions pertaining to prostitution and lewd or lascivious conduct to provide a uniform definition for "lewd and lascivious", which now means "wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual intention on the part of the person doing the act."
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
The general election is almost upon us; early voting begins 18 October. The following summarizes the constitutional amendments which will appear on the general election ballot. The full text of each amendment is provided as a attachment.
Amendment 1 would repeal the provision in the Article VI, § 7, that requires public financing of campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.
Amendment 2 would require the Legislature to provide an additional homestead property tax exemption for members of the United States military or military reserves who receive a homestead exemption and were deployed in the previous year on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature.
Amendment 4 would require that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice.
Amendment 5 would require that legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
Amendment 6 would require that congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
Amendment 8 would enlarge the size of classes in the public schools. Article IX, § 1, currently limits the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms in the following grade groupings: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 18 students; for grades 4 through 8, 22 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 25 students. Under this amendment, the current limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms would become limits on the average number of students assigned per class to each teacher, by specified grade grouping, in each public school. This amendment also adopts new limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in an individual classroom as follows: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 21 students; for grades 4 through 8, 27 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 30 students. This amendment provides that these revisions would take effect upon approval and would apply retroactively to the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.
