Cameron Dominque Roberts v. State of Florida ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •          FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    STATE OF FLORIDA
    _____________________________
    No. 1D18-1834
    _____________________________
    CAMERON DOMINQUE ROBERTS,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________
    On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
    William E. Davis, Judge.
    August 23, 2019
    PER CURIAM.
    Cameron Dominque Roberts appeals his convictions for
    robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted
    felon. Roberts argues that the trial court committed six reversible
    errors. Finding no merit in any of these arguments, we affirm.
    Facts
    The charges against Roberts arose from a failed drug
    transaction. Roberts’ sister, Ebony Young, arranged to purchase
    two ounces of marijuana from the victim and agreed on a location
    to meet the victim. Young arrived at the planned location with
    Roberts. Roberts and the victim argued over the price and the
    quality of the marijuana. The argument became physical, and the
    victim suffered an injury to his face. Roberts and Young took the
    marijuana without paying for it and left the area. Roberts was
    arrested three weeks later.
    Motions in Limine
    Before trial, Roberts filed two motions in limine. First, he
    sought to exclude evidence about the circumstances surrounding
    his arrest.      Defense counsel argued that the dramatic
    circumstances of the arrest, which involved a SWAT team and the
    Marshals Service, were not relevant to the charges against Roberts
    and that admission of evidence about the arrest would be highly
    prejudicial. The State responded that the events surrounding
    Roberts’ arrest were relevant because they showed consciousness
    of guilt. The court denied the motion.
    Second, Roberts sought to prevent law enforcement officers
    from opining that the injury to the victim’s face appeared to have
    been caused by a strike from the barrel of a shotgun. The State
    proffered the testimony of Detective Tom Mullins to establish that
    Mullins had detailed knowledge about shotguns. The trial court
    denied the motion, ruling that Mullins could testify about the size
    and shape of the injury, his personal experience with shotguns,
    and the diameter of the barrels of different gauges of shotguns.
    But the court barred the prosecutor from asking Mullins if the
    wound to the victim’s face looked as if it had been caused by a
    strike from the barrel of a shotgun.
    Jury Selection
    During the selection process, the State asked to use a
    preemptory strike on Prospective Juror Beckman. Because she
    was the only African American on the panel, defense counsel asked
    for a race-neutral reason for the strike. The State responded that
    it was striking Beckman because she did not understand a
    hypothetical about the burden of proof and because of her
    knowledge of marijuana prices. Defense counsel argued that the
    State’s reasons were not genuine because several prospective
    jurors were knowledgeable about marijuana, including a juror
    accepted by the State. Defense counsel contended that proper jury
    instructions on the burden of proof would resolve any confusion
    2
    caused by the hypothetical. The State replied that the purpose of
    the question concerning the burden of proof was to determine
    whether a prospective juror could follow the example and reach the
    correct conclusion; Beckman was unable to do so. The trial court
    found that the State provided a genuine race-neutral reason for
    the strike.
    Trial
    The victim testified that he had sold marijuana to Ebony
    Young in the past and that he agreed to sell to her on the day in
    question. Young arrived at the planned location with an unknown
    male passenger. After the victim gave Young the marijuana, the
    unknown male pulled out a shotgun and pointed it at the victim’s
    face. The victim tried to grab the marijuana, but the man hit the
    victim in the face with the barrel of the shotgun. The victim
    sustained a cut under his eye from the strike. After the incident,
    the victim learned that the man with Young was her brother,
    Cameron Roberts.
    On cross, the victim denied owning any firearms. He also
    testified that he agreed to enter a no contest plea for his probation
    violation in exchange for the State dropping three felony charges
    against him. When defense counsel sought to elicit testimony
    about the dropped charges, the prosecutor objected. Defense
    counsel argued that the nature of the offenses was relevant
    because the victim denied owning any firearms, yet he was
    arrested for carrying a concealed firearm. The court found that the
    victim’s arrest for a firearm offense was not relevant because it
    occurred five days after the robbery.
    Detective Tom Mullins testified that he had professional
    training and experience with firearms over the past twenty-two
    years of his law enforcement career. He also had personal
    experience with firearms because he started hunting at a young
    age and owned several firearms. During an interview with the
    victim nine days after the robbery, Mullins observed the injury to
    the victim’s face. He also reviewed photographs of the injury taken
    on the night of the robbery. Mullins described the injury as semi-
    circular, like an arc. He explained that the diameter of a twelve-
    gauge shotgun barrel was roughly the size of a nickel or just under
    3
    three-quarters of an inch and that the diameter of the barrel would
    increase or decrease based on the gauge of the shotgun. Mullins
    clarified that he could not say that a shotgun caused the victim’s
    injury.
    The State then called Ebony Young. Young remembered a
    “stick-like figure” by Roberts’ seat on the night in question. She
    recalled that Roberts asked questions about the victim during the
    drive, but she testified that she could not remember the details of
    their conversation. The prosecutor tried to refresh her recollection
    by using her sworn statement, but Young insisted that she did not
    remember what was said. Young agreed that her memory was
    better when she gave a sworn statement at the prosecutor’s office
    ten days after the robbery, and she agreed that the statement she
    gave then was truthful. Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial
    court allowed the prosecutor to read the portion of Young’s
    recorded statement where she attested that Roberts had asked if
    the victim was the type of person Roberts could “jack.”
    The prosecutor also tried to refresh Young’s recollection about
    the “stick-like figure” Roberts had with him in the car that night,
    but Young testified that reviewing her statement did not help her
    recall the information. Young remembered telling the prosecutor
    that Roberts used a shotgun, but she did not actually remember
    seeing a gun. She just assumed that the “stick-like figure” she had
    seen in the car was a shotgun when the police told her they were
    investigating an armed robbery. She claimed that she was not
    truthful when she referred to the “stick-like figure” as a shotgun
    in her statement because she was not sure it was a shotgun.
    Young testified that after the victim gave Roberts the
    marijuana, Roberts pulled out the object he had with him, but she
    “kind of blacked out” while Roberts and the victim fought. Again,
    reviewing her previous statement did not refresh Young’s
    recollection, so the prosecutor read the portion of her past
    statement in which she repeatedly stated that Roberts had a
    shotgun that night. Young did not contest the fact that she once
    told the prosecutor, “I never really saw it up close, but I do know it
    was a shotgun.” Young explained that she believed that parts of
    her previous statement were true and parts were untrue, but she
    could not point to the untrue parts.
    4
    Investigator David Sanders with the U.S. Marshals’ fugitive
    task force provided testimony concerning Roberts’ arrest. Sanders
    and his team surrounded the apartment building where Roberts
    was located and used loud speakers to order Roberts out of the
    apartment. The announcements continued for several hours with
    no response from Roberts. Eventually, Ebony Brown, Roberts’
    girlfriend, exited the apartment and confirmed that Roberts was
    inside. The team continued with the announcements for some
    time, but Roberts never left the apartment. SWAT was not called
    until after Sanders’ team spent a couple of hours trying to convince
    Roberts to leave the apartment. SWAT made a few more
    announcements before throwing tear gas into the apartment. Still,
    Roberts refused to leave the apartment and did not leave until his
    mother arrived.
    Roberts testified on his own behalf. He denied having any
    weapons on his person when he and Young went to meet the
    victim.    During the transaction, Roberts noticed that the
    marijuana was not the type he had requested, and he and the
    victim argued about the quality of the product. Roberts claimed
    that the victim became belligerent when Roberts tried to
    renegotiate the price, and the victim stabbed Roberts’ hand.
    Roberts hit the victim a couple of times with his elbow before he
    and his sister left the area. Roberts stated that he did not
    immediately leave the apartment when the police arrived because
    the police announced that they could not ensure his safety and he
    feared for his life. He did not leave the apartment until his mother
    arrived and told him that it was safe.
    During the State’s rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor
    argued that the jury should not place much weight on Roberts’
    statement to the police about injuring his hand because the
    statement was made three weeks after the robbery.              The
    prosecutor stated, “It would be one thing if Mr. Roberts had, you
    know, contacted law enforcement the night this happened and
    said, hey, I was the victim. Look, I got cut in the hand, and they
    can document that.” Defense counsel argued that the prosecutor
    was engaging in burden shifting because the argument implied
    that Roberts had an obligation to put on some proof. The trial
    court overruled the objection. The prosecutor argued that Roberts’
    5
    story about injuring his hand was not credible because any injury
    was not reported until three weeks after the robbery.
    The jury found Roberts guilty of robbery with a firearm and
    possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. This appeal follows.
    Analysis
    Roberts argues that the trial court erred in six respects: (1)
    by allowing the State to exercise a peremptory challenge on the
    sole African-American prospective juror; (2) in limiting the cross-
    examination of the victim; (3) by allowing Detective Tom Mullins
    to give lay opinion testimony; (4) in denying a motion in limine that
    sought to exclude evidence of the circumstances surrounding his
    arrest; (5) in allowing the State to admit a past recorded
    recollection.; and (6) in overruling defense counsel’s objection to a
    statement made during rebuttal closing arguments.
    Peremptory Challenge
    The State provided two race-neutral reasons for striking
    Prospective Juror Beckman: (1) Beckman did not understand the
    State’s burden of proof; and (2) Beckman was familiar with
    marijuana, including the pricing of marijuana. Roberts argues
    that these reasons were not genuine because the reasons applied
    equally to other prospective jurors, but the State sought to exclude
    only Beckman, the sole African-American juror.             Using a
    peremptory challenge on a prospective juror who is a member of a
    distinct racial group when the proffered reason applies equally to
    a prospective juror who is not a member of a distinct racial group
    can be racially discriminatory. Hunter v. State, 
    225 So. 3d 838
    , 839
    (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). However, that is not what occurred here.
    During jury selection, the prosecutor used a hypothetical to
    explain the concept of burden of proof to the jury. The prosecutor
    asked the jury panel to believe that it was illegal to possess a blue
    pen and that the elements of the crime were that the pen was blue
    and that the accused possessed the pen. When the prosecutor
    asked if proof of the brand of the pen would affect her verdict,
    Beckman responded that she would look at both sides of the story
    and consider the evidence before reaching a verdict. Beckman,
    6
    along with a few other jurors, did not immediately understand
    from the hypothetical that the State’s burden was limited to
    proving the elements of the charged crime. The record shows that
    none of the other jurors confused by the hypothetical served on the
    jury.
    The State’s second reason for excluding Beckman was based
    on her knowledge of marijuana. When asked about what she knew
    about marijuana, Beckman responded, “I’ve seen it, smelled it,
    somewhat the value.” She believed that the value was determined
    by ounces, but later explained that she did not really understand
    the valuation because it involved a lot of math. Jurors West,
    Rodriguez, and Willis, who served, stated that they had seen and
    smelled marijuana, but they did not know its value. Juror Whyte
    testified that her knowledge was limited to the appearance of
    marijuana. Unlike West, Rodriguez, Willis, and Whyte, Beckman
    had some knowledge—however limited—concerning the value of
    marijuana.
    Because our review of the record shows that the State’s
    reasons for striking Beckman were race-neutral, the trial court did
    not abuse its discretion in permitting the State to strike Beckman
    from the jury panel. See Johnson v. State, 
    238 So. 3d 726
    , 740 (Fla.
    2018).
    Cross-examination
    Next, Roberts argues that the trial court impermissibly
    limited his ability to cross-examine the victim about (1) the State
    charging the victim with crimes involving firearms several days
    after the armed robbery occurred, (2) the victim’s admission during
    a police interview that he possessed a firearm when he was
    arrested on the new charges, and (3) the State’s decision to drop
    those charges despite the victim’s confession. Based on our review
    of the record, we find no error by the trial court in limiting the
    cross-examination of the victim.
    A defendant has the right to conduct a full cross-examination
    of a witness, especially when the witness being examined is a key
    witness for the State. Docekal v. State, 
    929 So. 2d 1139
    , 1143 (Fla.
    5th DCA 2006). A permissible subject of cross-examination is
    7
    whether the witness is biased or has an interest in the outcome of
    the case. Id. For example, a witness may be questioned about
    whether he has or had charges pending against him:
    It is well-settled that “if a witness for the State were
    presently or recently under actual or threatened
    criminal charges or investigation leading to such
    criminal charges, a person against whom such witness
    testifies in a criminal case has an absolute right to bring
    those circumstances out on cross-examination or
    otherwise so that the jury will be fully apprised as to the
    witness’ possible motive or self-interest with respect to
    the testimony he gives.”
    Fajardo v. State, 
    193 So. 3d 1019
    , 1024-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
    (quoting Morrell v. State, 
    297 So. 2d 579
    , 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)).
    But there are limits on a defendant’s right to cross-examine a
    witness about bias. Breedlove v. State, 
    580 So. 2d 605
    , 609 (Fla.
    1991). “Evidence of bias may be inadmissible if it unfairly
    prejudices the trier of fact against the witness or misleads the trier
    of fact. Therefore, inquiry into collateral matters, if such matters
    will not promote the ends of justice, should not be permitted if it is
    unjust to the witness and uncalled for by the circumstances.” Id.
    Here, defense counsel elicited some testimony from the victim
    showing his potential bias: the victim testified that he was
    arrested for three third-degree felonies, the State did not prosecute
    him for those charges, and the State had not promised him
    anything in exchange for his testimony. As a result, defense
    counsel showed that the victim could have a motive for testifying
    against Roberts.
    The trial court’s ruling limiting the cross-examination of the
    victim and barring defense counsel from asking about the nature
    of the charges against the victim prevented the jury from being
    misled. One of the issues disputed at trial was whether the victim
    was armed during the drug deal. Had the jury learned that the
    victim was arrested for carrying a concealed firearm, the jury may
    have been misled into believing that the victim’s arrest five days
    after the robbery was evidence that he possessed a gun during the
    8
    robbery. Considering the passage of time between the robbery and
    the victim’s arrest, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
    preventing defense counsel from asking the victim about the exact
    nature of the dropped charges. Chambers v. State, 
    200 So. 3d 242
    ,
    246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
    Lay Opinion Testimony
    Roberts also contends that the trial court erred when it
    allowed Detective Mullins to offer impermissible lay testimony. A
    lay witness cannot testify about an inference or opinion because it
    invades the province of the jury. Johnson v. State, 
    252 So. 3d 1114
    ,
    1116 (Fla. 2018). Our review of the record shows that Detective
    Mullins limited his testimony to his observation of the victim’s
    wound nine days after the robbery, his viewing of photographs of
    the victim’s wound on the night of the robbery, his observation that
    the victim’s wound was a certain size, and his assertion that the
    barrel of a twelve-gauge shotgun was a certain size. Mullins did
    not offer an opinion about the cause of the victim’s wound; his
    testimony was limited to his personal observations and knowledge.
    Mullins did not testify that he believed that a shotgun caused the
    injury to the victim’s face. Rather, he testified that he was unable
    to reach such a conclusion. For these reasons, the trial court did
    not abuse its discretion by allowing this testimony. McCray v.
    State, 
    919 So. 2d 647
    , 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
    Circumstances Surrounding the Arrest
    Roberts argues next that the trial court erred in denying his
    motion in limine to exclude evidence surrounding his arrest
    because the evidence was unduly prejudicial and did not reflect a
    consciousness of guilt. Evidence of flight and resisting lawful
    arrest are admissible to show consciousness of guilt if there is a
    nexus between the flight or concealment and the crimes for which
    the defendant is being tried. Twilegar v. State, 
    42 So. 3d 177
    , 196
    (Fla. 2010). The significance of evidence of flight is weakened:
    1) if the suspect was unaware at the time of the flight
    that he was the subject of a criminal investigation for
    the particular crime charged; 2) where there were not
    clear indications that the defendant had in fact fled; or,
    9
    3) where there was a significant time delay from the
    commission of the crime to the time of flight. The
    interpretation to be gleaned from an act of flight should
    be made with a sensitivity to the facts of the particular
    case.
    Id. (quoting Bundy v. State, 
    471 So. 2d 9
    , 21 (Fla. 1985)).
    Here, the prosecutor presented testimony that Roberts knew
    that a warrant was out for his arrest. Young told Roberts that she
    had informed law enforcement that Roberts had a shotgun during
    the robbery. The officers seeking to make the arrest announced on
    loud speakers that they were there to execute a warrant. Roberts
    admitted that he heard the announcements. Rather than exit the
    apartment, Roberts chose to hide in the apartment for hours—even
    after tear gas was launched inside the apartment. Based on this
    record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
    concluded that the probative value of the evidence of the
    circumstances surrounding the arrest outweighed its prejudicial
    effect. Patrick v. State, 
    104 So. 3d 1046
    , 1056 (Fla. 2012).
    Past Recorded Recollection
    Next, Roberts argues that the trial court erred by allowing the
    prosecutor to impeach Young by using her past recorded
    recollection because there was insufficient testimony that Young
    believed that her past statement was accurate.
    Section 90.803(5), Florida Statutes (2017), defines a past
    recorded recollection as:
    A memorandum or record concerning a matter about
    which a witness once had knowledge, but now has
    insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify
    fully and accurately, shown to have been made by the
    witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s
    memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. A party
    may read into evidence a memorandum or record when
    it is admitted, but no such memorandum or record is
    admissible as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse
    party.
    10
    A witness’s testimony about the accuracy of the statement is
    essential to the admission of the evidence. Polite v. State, 
    116 So. 3d
     270, 275 (Fla. 2013). “If the witness is unable to adequately
    recall making the record, the witness may nevertheless verify the
    record or memorandum by testimony that: (1) although the
    witness does not recall the statement, the witness has a habit of
    recording such matters correctly or (2) the witness believes the
    statement is correct because the witness would have been truthful
    in providing the statement.” Id. at 279.
    Ten days after the robbery, Young appeared at the
    prosecutor’s office and gave a sworn statement. She agreed that
    her memory about the robbery was better when she gave the
    statement ten days after the robbery than it was at trial. She also
    agreed that she was truthful when she gave the statement. Young
    later gave the caveat that her statement was truthful, except when
    she said that Roberts had a shotgun on the night of the robbery.
    Young’s testimony laid a sufficient foundation for the
    admission of her past statement. Blount v. State, 
    152 So. 3d 29
    (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Admission of a past recorded recollection of
    a witness is proper when the witness’s trial testimony shows: the
    witness does not remember the events surrounding the shooting,
    the witness once had this knowledge, the witness described the
    events in a sworn statement while they were fresh in the witness’s
    mind, and the witness was telling the truth when the sworn
    statement was provided. Id. at 30. Young’s testimony at Roberts’
    trial satisfied each of these requirements. Thus, the trial court did
    not abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecutor to present
    Young’s past recorded recollection. McCray, 919 So. 2d at 649.
    Closing Arguments
    Finally, Roberts argues that the trial court erred in overruling
    his objection to the prosecutor’s comment that the jury should not
    place much weight on Roberts’ claim about injuring his hand
    during the robbery because Roberts did not mention this injury
    until he was arrested three weeks later.
    11
    The State may not comment on a defendant’s failure to
    produce evidence because such comments may cause the jury to
    believe that the defendant has the burden of introducing evidence.
    Jackson v. State, 
    575 So. 2d 181
    , 188 (Fla. 1991). But a
    prosecutor’s comments are not considered impermissible burden-
    shifting when the comments are invited by defense counsel’s
    closing argument. Scott v. State, 
    66 So. 3d 923
    , 930 (Fla. 2011). A
    prosecutor may comment on the credibility of a defendant when
    the defendant testifies and when the prosecutor limits the
    comment to facts that are in record or may be reasonably inferred
    from the record. Gale v. State, 
    483 So. 2d 53
    , 54 (Fla. 1st DCA
    1986).
    Contrary to Roberts’ assertion, the prosecutor did not engage
    in burden shifting. Defense counsel argued during closing that
    Roberts’ testimony about the victim injuring Roberts’ hand during
    the drug deal was believable because it was corroborated by
    Young’s and Mullins’ testimony. In response, the prosecutor
    argued that neither Young’s nor Mullins’ testimony supported
    Roberts’ claim that he sustained an injury during the altercation.
    Thus, the prosecutor’s comments were invited by defense counsel’s
    argument.
    Conclusion
    Because we find no reversible error, we AFFIRM the court’s
    imposition of judgment and sentence.
    ROWE, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
    _____________________________
    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
    _____________________________
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and M. J. Lord, Assistant Public
    Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    12
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham,
    Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
    13