Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 25, 2003; Florida; State Appellate Court
Hank Mathew was convicted of false imprisonment, assault, and battery. On appeal, he raised multiple issues, focusing on two: the trial judge's alleged loss of neutrality and the improper application of a domestic violence sentencing multiplier. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentence, ruling that the use of the multiplier was improper without a jury finding of domestic violence occurring in the presence of a child, referencing Apprendi v. New Jersey.
The evidence indicated a tumultuous relationship between Mathew and the victim, who had a three-year-old daughter together. Following a confrontation triggered by Mathew's jealousy, the victim sought a restraining order and changed the apartment locks. When she returned with the order, Mathew, armed, assaulted her in the presence of their child. After escaping to a shelter, the victim faced continued threats from Mathew, leading her to return home. Mathew claimed the victim's accusations were fabricated due to his new relationship.
The jury found Mathew guilty of lesser offenses related to the original charges. The appellate court emphasized the importance of judicial impartiality, noting that the trial judge's comments during the trial could undermine the perception of neutrality essential for fair proceedings.
The court denied defense counsel's request for a side bar regarding objections and publicly commented in front of the jury that the trial was "starting to sound like Jerry Springer." It interrupted defense counsel's closing argument to assert that the argument was "inappropriate." The trial court also guided the prosecutor on how to frame questions to meet the "excited utterance" hearsay exception. Florida case law indicates that the judge's comments, especially the "Jerry Springer" remark, should not have been made in the jury's presence, as seen in the precedent set by Jones v. State. In that case, the court reprimanded defense counsel in front of the jury, which was deemed excessive despite acknowledging the challenges faced by trial judges. The remarks made by the trial court undermined the fairness of the trial, as the defendant's right to a fair trial should not be compromised due to defense counsel's conduct. Although the trial court's strain was understood, its comments in front of the jury were inappropriate. The record suggests a lack of impartiality, impacting the defendant's fair trial rights. Most of the complained remarks were not objected to by defense counsel, and where objections were made, they did not address the judge's perceived bias or lack of neutrality.
To preserve alleged trial judge improprieties for appellate review, a contemporaneous objection must be made during the prejudicial conduct. Without such an objection, the trial court's actions warrant reversal only if they constitute fundamental error, which undermines the trial's validity to the extent that a guilty verdict could not be obtained without it. Not every improper act or comment by a judge qualifies as fundamental error. In this case, although the trial judge's comments were improper, they did not rise to fundamental error, and the Appellant's convictions were affirmed.
However, the Appellant's sentence for false imprisonment must be reversed because the trial court improperly applied a domestic violence multiplier, exceeding the statutory maximum without an express jury finding that the crime occurred in the presence of a minor child, as required by Apprendi v. New Jersey. The maximum penalty for a third-degree felony, including false imprisonment, is five years, and the imposed sentence of 81.83 months exceeded this limit. The jury was not instructed to consider whether the child witnessed the crime, which is necessary for applying the domestic violence multiplier. The remand for resentencing is required, eliminating the multiplier, while the conviction remains affirmed. Judges FARMER and KLEIN concur.
