01-0385 JACKSON V. STATE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2002 » 01-0385 JACKSON V. STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 01-0385 JACKSON V. STATE

Case Date: 12/18/2002

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 2002

DWAYNE A. JACKSON, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D01-385 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 00-10161

Opinion filed December 18, 2002. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence A. Schwartz, Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Andrew Stanton, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Richard E. Doran, Attorney General, and Barbara A. Zappi, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Dwayne A. Jackson, appeals from his judgment

of conviction and sentence for burglary of an occupied dwelling. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. After the defense announced that it would not present a case, the trial court ruled that the defendant could be

impeached with his prior felony convictions pursuant to section 90.806, Florida Statutes. Immediately thereafter, defense

counsel moved to reopen the case.

He attempted to explain to

the trial court that the defendant's initial decision not to testify was based on his desire that the jury not learn of his prior convictions but that now that the jury would learn of his prior convictions, his reason for not testifying was moot. The

trial court denied the motion to reopen the case stating, "We're going to finish it my way today. counsel's motion for mistrial The answer is no." was denied, and Defense the jury

ultimately learned that the defendant had been convicted of numerous felonies. The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing him to reopen his case. We agree.

A trial court's decision to reopen a case lies within its sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. See Donaldson v. State, 722 So. 2d 177,

181 (Fla. 1998); Biggs v. State, 745 So. 2d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In Donaldson, the Florida Supreme Court explained

2

the circumstances where the denial of a defendant's motion to reopen his case would be subject to reversal on appeal. Court held: Where the case is not technically closed (i.e., counsel have not begun closing argument and the case has not been submitted to the jury), the denial of a defendant's motion to reopen the case will be reversed if the motion was timely and a proper showing has been made as to why the evidence was omitted. Donaldson, 722 So. 2d at 181 (citations omitted). The

In applying the test set forth in Donaldson, it is clear that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the

defendant's motion to reopen his case.

First, the case was not

"technically closed" because closing argument had not yet begun. Second, the motion was timely because defense counsel moved to reopen the case immediately after the trial court ruled that the defendant's prior convictions were admissible. Finally, defense counsel made a proper showing as to why the evidence had been omitted when he explained to the trial court why the defendant had initially decided not to testify.1 As a result of our disposition of the above issue, we do not address the remaining points raised by the defendant.

We recognize that trial courts are confronted with heavy case loads and that they strive for the expeditious resolution of matters; however, we would like to note, that a trial court's decision to deny a motion to reopen a case should not be based on its desire to "finish . . . it today." 3

1

Reversed and remand for further proceedings.

4

Download 01-0385 JACKSON V. STATE.pdf