Jacobs v. State
358 So.2d 1110, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15971 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's improper reference to a non-testifying codefendant's confession does not constitute reversible error if the confession is never admitted into evidence and the trial court provides a prompt, curative instruction to the jury to disregard the statement.
Facts:
- James Randolph Jacobs, Phillip Brannon Courtney, and Dale James King were together in a vehicle.
- One of the occupants discharged a shotgun from the vehicle into a gathering of people.
- The shooting resulted in the death of two individuals and the injury of several others.
- Prior to their arrest, Jacobs made inculpatory statements to witnesses.
- Also prior to their arrest, codefendant Courtney made inculpatory statements in Jacobs' presence.
Procedural Posture:
- James Randolph Jacobs was indicted on two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder.
- Jacobs was tried jointly with a codefendant, Phillip Brannon Courtney, before a jury in the trial court.
- The jury found Jacobs guilty of the lesser included offenses of second-degree murder on two counts and aggravated battery on two counts.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Jacobs to consecutive terms of life imprisonment and fifteen years.
- Jacobs (appellant) appealed the judgment and sentence to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor's characterization of a document as a codefendant's 'confession' constitute reversible error if the document is not admitted into evidence and the judge issues a curative instruction to the jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A prosecutor's improper characterization does not constitute reversible error under these circumstances. The court held that because the alleged confession by codefendant King was never admitted into evidence, the rule from Bruton v. United States, which protects a defendant from the admission of a non-testifying codefendant's confession, was not applicable. The trial court's immediate and clear instruction for the jury to disregard the prosecutor's comment was sufficient to cure any potential prejudice. The court also found no error in the admission of testimony about inculpatory statements made by Jacobs himself or by his codefendant in his presence prior to arrest, as these did not create a 'Bruton situation.' Finally, the trial court's denial of the motion to sever the trials was a proper exercise of its judicial discretion.
Dissenting - Boyd, Associate Judge
The opinion notes the dissent without providing any reasoning.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that a curative instruction from a judge can often remedy a prosecutor's improper statements, thereby preventing the need for a mistrial. It helps to delineate the boundaries of the Bruton rule, clarifying that the rule is triggered by the actual admission of a codefendant's confession, not merely a reference to it. The case also underscores the high degree of deference appellate courts give to a trial court's discretionary rulings, such as the denial of a motion for severance. For future cases, it affirms that pre-arrest statements made by a codefendant in the defendant's presence may be admissible and fall outside the scope of Confrontation Clause protections established in Bruton.
