5D99-3102opROMA-STATE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2001 » 5D99-3102opROMA-STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D99-3102opROMA-STATE

Case Date: 06/04/2001

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001

ROBERT N. ROMA, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ______________________________/ Opinion filed June 8, 2001 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Warren Burk, Judge. Elizabeth Siano Harris of Stadler & Harris, P.A., Titusville, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Angela D. McCravy, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. SHARP, W., J. Roma appeals from his judgment and sentence for committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child, in violation of section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes (1995). The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in giving a modified Allen charge.1 We affirm. Roma was charged with eight counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child between December 29, 1996 and January 31, 1997. At the time the victim was fifteen years old and CASE NO. 5D99-3102

1

Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896).

Roma was twenty-six. The two met while they were acting at a community playhouse. The victim testified Roma said she was very mature, that he was in love with her, and that they should be engaged. He gave her a ring and other gifts. They met at the movies, the beach, and Roma's apartment. The victim testified they engaged in sexual activities, and that she was a willing partner, deceiving her parents to meet him. No force was used and Roma respected her wishes when she did not want to engage in intercourse. Roma denied having sex with the victim. He admitted hugging and kissing her, but he claimed the two only had a platonic relationship. The credibility of the two was at issue. Witnesses began testifying at Roma's trial on June 17, 1999 and ended shortly before 4:15 p.m. the following day. Counsel then delivered their closing arguments. The judge instructed the jury and the jury retired to deliberate. At about 8:40 p.m., the jury asked to see poster boards used by counsel during closing arguments. The judge told Mr. Feldman, the jury foreperson, that the boards were not in evidence and the judge could not send them back to the jurors. The jury continued their deliberations. At 10:30 p.m., the following exchange took place: THE COURT: Would you bring the jury back? All right. The jury is back in the jury box. Mr. Feldman, without telling me what the vote score might be, are you making progress towards the verdict? MR. FELDMAN: Your Honor, we are very close to being hung on as a jury. We can agree on certain counts but not all counts. I don't think we can reach a conclusion on one or two of the counts period.

2

I think that we are hopelessly deadlocked on a few of the counts. THE COURT: If you will go back

Download 5D99-3102opROMA-STATE.pdf