Appellate standards of review in criminal matters.

• Jurisdiction: United States
• Date: 01 June 2007
• Author: Luyster, Julia

The appellate standard of review defines the manner and scope of an appellate court's review of a lower tribunal's actions whether it is the actions of a judge, jury, or administrative body. Part one of this article identified the appropriate standard of review for specific civil, family law, and administrative matters. This article identifies the appropriate standard of review for specific criminal matters as a companion piece to part one of this article published in the May issue of The Florida Bar Journal.

Criminal Cases

1. Preliminary Issues

   1) Motion to Dismiss

   The standard of review for dismissal of the state's charge against a defendant is de novo. (1)

   2) Motion to Suppress

   A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed correct. (2) These often present mixed questions of law and fact that the appellate court must review independently. (3)

   3) Speedy Trial

   The standard of review applied to an order on a motion for discharge under the speedy trial rule depends upon whether the order is based upon a finding of fact or a conclusion of law, with factual disputes reviewed for competent substantial evidence. (4)

   4) Double Jeopardy

   Whether a sentence violates double jeopardy is reviewed de novo. (5)

   5) Discovery Violations

   A trial court's ruling on whether a discovery violation warrants exclusion of the evidence or testimony is discretionary. This decision is not disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (6)

   When defense evidence is erroneously excluded for alleged discovery violations, the court must review the ruling under a harmless error analysis. It must determine whether the erroneously excluded evidence could have had an effect on the jury favorable to the defendant or if the improper exclusion could have reasonably affected the outcome of the case. If the evidence may have affected the outcome, then the error is not harmless. (7)

   6) Richardson Violations

   For Richardson violations, appellate review is appropriate under either of two prongs. First, "if the record is insufficient for the appellate court to determine that the defense was not prejudiced by the discovery violation, the [s]tate has not met its burden to establish harmless error, and the error must be considered harmful." (8) Alternatively, the appellate court must consider whether there is a reasonable probability that the discovery violation procedurally prejudiced the defense. (9)

   7) Defendant's Competence

   The standard of review of a trial court's determination of a defendant's competence to stand trial is the abuse of discretion standard. (10) In determining a defendant's competence to stand trial, the trial court decides whether the defendant has "'sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding--and whether he has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him.'" (11)

   8) Pretrial Release

   "Matters relating to the setting of bail and the conditions attached to a defendant's pretrial release on bail are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." (12)

   9) Venue

   The standard of review for an order on motion to transfer venue is abuse of discretion. (13)

   10) Disqualification of Judge

   The proper standard of review for disqualifying a judge is de novo. (14)

   11) Issue of Availability

   A trial court's determination on the issue of a witness' availability is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (15) Discretion is abused only when the judicial action is "arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court." (16)

2. Plea Issues on Direct Appeal

   1) Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea

   A trial court's order on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (17) When the motion is filed after sentencing, the appellate court will reverse only when a manifest injustice occurs. (18)

3. Trial Issues

   1) Voir Dire Problems

   1. Challenge for Cause

      A juror is excused for cause when there is reasonable doubt the juror will be able to render an impartial verdict. (19) The appellate court reviews a ruling on a challenge for cause for abuse of discretion. (20)

      2) Prosecutorial Misconduct

      The scope of review for improper argument is whether the appellate court can see from the record that the prosecutor's conduct did not prejudice the defendant. Unless this conclusion can be drawn from the record, the judgment should be reversed. (21) The general rule is that "failing to raise a contemporaneous objection when improper closing argument comments are made waives any claim concerning such comments for appellate review." (22) The only exception to this rule is when the unobjected-to comments rise to the level of fundamental error. "In order for an error to be fundamental and justify reversal in the absence of a timely objection, the error must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the alleged error." (23)

      3) Sufficiency of Evidence

      In a death penalty case, the Florida Supreme Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (24)

   1. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

      The court reviews de novo a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, for the sole purpose of determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient. (25) The conviction is affirmed unless it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. (26) The appellate court determines, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, if sufficient evidence exists that would permit a rational trier of fact to find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (27)

   2. Circumstantial Evidence

      When a case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, a special standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence applies. (28) The burden is on the state to introduce competent evidence inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence in order for the conviction to be sustained. (29)

      4) Williams Rule Evidence

      A trial court's decision to admit collateral crime evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (30) A party may be permitted to introduce collateral crime evidence when it is relevant to prove a material fact. However, this type of evidence is inadmissible when it is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. (31) Because of the strict standard of relevancy that applies, collateral crime evidence is admissible as Williams rule evidence only if it is strikingly similar to the charged crime and the similarity is so unique as to constitute "fingerprint" evidence. (32)

      "The erroneous admission of irrelevant collateral crimes evidence 'is presumed harmful error because of the danger that a jury will take the bad character or propensity ... as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.'" (33) The harmless error test places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is "no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction." (34) A trial court's exclusion of similar crimes committed by another person for exculpatory purposes, generally referred to as "reverse Williams rule evidence," is also subject to an abuse of discretion review. (35)

      5) Giglio Violation

      To establish a Giglio violation, a petitioner must show that 1) some testimony at trial was false; 2) the prosecutor knew that the testimony was false; and 3) the testimony was material. (36) The court applies a mixed standard of review to Giglio claims, "deferring to the factual findings made by the trial court to the extent they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviewing de novo the application of those facts to the law." (37)

      6) Jury Instructions

      A trial court's decision on jury instructions is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (38) The standard has also been characterized as a mixed standard of de novo and abuse of discretion because deciding whether to instruct the jury on a particular subject begins as a rule-bound exercise. (39)

      7) Motion for New Trial

      The standard of review of a motion for new trial depends upon the subject matter of the motion. For example, the appellate court's standard of review of a trial court's order granting or denying a motion for new trial on the ground of juror misconduct is abuse of discretion. (40) But the question of whether a suspect is in custody is a mixed question of law and fact. Mixed questions of law and fact that ultimately determine constitutional rights are ordinarily reviewed by a two-step approach, deferring to the trial court on questions of historical fact while conducting a de novo review of the constitutional question. (41)

      8) Juror Misconduct

      Addressing allegations of juror misconduct is within the discretion of the trial court. (42) Before making an inquiry, the trial court must determine if the matters inhere in the verdict and are subjective in nature or are outside the verdict and objective in nature. (43) If the conduct does not inhere in the verdict, then the trial court may inquire of the misconduct. (44) Whether a new trial should be granted for juror misconduct is a burden placed on the moving party. (45) Once the movant proves actual juror misconduct, he or she is entitled to a new trial unless the opposing party demonstrates there is no reasonable possibility that the misconduct affected the verdict. (46)

4. Sentencing Issues

   A sentencing error constituting an illegal sentence is reviewed de novo. (47)

   1) Length of sentence

   1. Guidelines

   9. Scoresheet

      The proper application of scoresheets is a question of law reviewed de novo. On appeal from a denial of a Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence on the basis of the court records...