The case involved Christina Yacoub's appeal of her felony DUI conviction, which was based on two prior 2002 misdemeanor DUI pleas. Yacoub challenged the felony charge by asserting that one of the prior convictions was uncounseled, raising a jurisdictional issue under Florida law. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for resentencing as a misdemeanor, holding that Yacoub had met her initial burden to show the prior offense was punishable by imprisonment, her indigency, lack of appointed counsel, and no waiver. Once that burden shifted, the state provided no evidence such as transcripts, waivers, or testimony to prove counsel was provided or validly waived, failing to satisfy the requirements from State v. Kelly and State v. Beach.
This case was a declaratory judgment action between Sunshine State Insurance Company, issuer of a homeowner's policy, and Geico, issuer of an automobile policy, to determine which insurer had the duty to defend and indemnify an insured passenger in a car accident. The underlying incident involved a passenger grabbing the steering wheel during horseplay, causing the driver to lose control and crash. The trial court ruled that the passenger's conduct did not constitute "use" of the vehicle under the auto policy, so Geico had no coverage obligation while Sunshine State's policy applied because its motor vehicle exclusion was not triggered. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the claims did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the auto as defined in the policies and that the auto policy's permission requirement for non-owned vehicles was not met.
The case concerned Roderick Walker, who was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school. To rebut the state's use of $3,000 in cash as evidence of intent to sell, Walker attempted to introduce his fiancée's check stub showing that she had received and cashed a large paycheck from her 401(k) and given him $3,000. The trial court excluded the check stub on hearsay grounds, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The court held that the check stub was a written assertion offered for its truth and thus hearsay under Florida statute, and that it did not qualify for any exception such as the business records exception, unlike a negotiable instrument such as the check itself.
In Covington v. State, the defendant was charged with grand theft for shoplifting groceries from Publix in an incident captured on surveillance video that was later recorded over. During closing arguments, the prosecutor responded to the defense's emphasis on the absent video by stating that the defendant could have obtained and shown it, an argument the court found factually inaccurate because the defendant was unaware of the video during the relevant time period and one that improperly shifted the burden of proof. The appellate court reviewed the full record, concluded the error was not harmless, and reversed the conviction while remanding for a new trial.
This case was a medical malpractice action brought by the estate of Susan Special against an anesthesiologist, his practice groups, and a hospital, alleging negligence in the administration of anesthesia, monitoring, and response to cardiopulmonary arrest during a cesarean delivery that resulted in her death. The defendants maintained that the death was caused by amniotic fluid embolus (AFE), a diagnosis of exclusion supported by their expert. The trial court limited the plaintiff's cross-examination of the defense expert regarding the reliability of an AFE diagnosis in light of unusually high incidence rates at the hospital. On appeal, the en banc court affirmed the defense judgment, receding from prior precedent that applied an outcome-determinative "but-for" harmless error test in civil cases and instead adopting the standard that the beneficiary of an error must demonstrate it is more likely than not that the error did not influence the trier of fact and contribute to the verdict; under this test, the limitation on cross-examination was deemed harmless.
Joseph Williams was convicted of first-degree murder of his estranged wife after a jury trial in which his defense claimed the killing occurred in the heat of the moment without premeditation. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to establish premeditation and the trial court's admission of two photographs showing the victim's decomposed body. The court determined that the evidence, including Williams's statements and the circumstances of the killing, presented a question for the jury on premeditation. It further held that the photographs were relevant to the medical examiner's testimony on cause of death and identity and were not so gruesome as to be unduly prejudicial under the balancing test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.