4D10-432-James Adams v. State*

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 4D10-432.op

Case Date: 02/15/2012

Plaintiff: 4D10-432-James Adams

Defendant: State*

Preview:DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
January Term 2012

JAMES ADAMS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D10-432 [February 15, 2012] PER CURIAM. James Adams was tried b y jury and convicted of second degree murder, a lesser included offense of the charged premeditated murder. The evidence at trial established that, in the weeks prior to the victim's death, the defendant and his girlfriend had been staying with the victim, Elijah Brown, in Brown's hotel room and that all three were drug users. Brown was beaten to death with a four-by-four board and both the defendant's girlfriend and stepmother testified at trial, implicating the defendant in the murder. In this appeal, Adams contends his conviction must be reversed on two grounds: (1) he was entitled to a mistrial after a juror briefly observed him in shackles, and (2) the trial court erred in permitting the State to play the girlfriend's taped statement to police. We find neither argument has merit and affirm. With regard to the jury issue, after individual inquiry, the judge determined one juror briefly observed the defendant in the hallway while the defendant was shackled. The juror indicated the brief sighting would not impact his ability to be fair. Under these circumstances, there was n o abuse of discretion in the denial of the defendant's motion for mistrial. See, e.g., Knight v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S537, S539 (Fla. Sept. 28, 2011) ("`[W]e have long held that a juror's or prospective juror's brief, inadvertent view of a defendant in shackles is not so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial.'") (quoting Hernandez v. State, 4 So. 3d 642, 658 (Fla. 2009)). As for the evidentiary issue, on appeal, the defendant argues the State should not have been permitted to play the girlfriend's taped statement

to police as it was hearsay and not admissible as a prior consistent statement. See

Download 4D10-432.op.pdf