final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. James C.
Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A.,
Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Moody, Attorney General; and Virginia Chester Harris,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
convicted Appellant of murdering his wife. He is serving a
life sentence in prison for first-degree murder, and this is
his direct appeal. He asserts the trial court reversibly
erred in three respects: (1) by denying Appellant's
motion for new trial without conducting an evidentiary
hearing; (2) by allowing the State to introduce hearsay
evidence; and (3) by denying Appellant's motion to
withdraw a formerly-exercised peremptory challenge. After
careful consideration, we reject Appellant's arguments
and affirm his judgment and sentence.
Denial of Motion for New Trial.
review the trial court's ruling on the new-trial motion
for abuse of discretion. Tunidor v. State, 221 So.3d
587, 603 (Fla. 2017). "In order to demonstrate abuse,
the nonprevailing party must establish that no reasonable
person would take the view adopted by the trial court."
Id. (quoting Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d
747, 754 (Fla. 2001)).
alleged a Brady violation as grounds for a new trial.
To establish a Brady violation, Appellant had to
show the evidence was favorable to him, either because it was
exculpatory or because it was impeaching; the State
suppressed the evidence, either willfully or inadvertently;
and prejudice resulted. Floyd v. State, 902 So.2d
775, 779 (Fla. 2005) (citing Carroll v. State, 815
So.2d 601, 619 (Fla. 2002)). The alleged Brady
violation involved a statement purported to be from the
victim's family, apparently in Madagascar, the
victim's home country. Evidence at trial indicated that
the victim had no family in the United States, and that her
family had never visited her here. At sentencing, the
prosecutor explained that the family statement was unsigned,
had been roughly translated from the original language, and
the family wanted it to be read at sentencing. Without
objection or comment from the defense, the prosecutor read
the statement into the record, as follows:
For us, the Frasch – well, it says, For us, the Samira
family [referencing the victim's first name], we hold
[Appellant] responsible for the death of Samira. According to
Samira, she was very afraid that [Appellant] would hurt her,
because she had noticed the presence of someone prowling in
their home nights before his (sic) death.
As [Appellant] came to see the house, certainly she had to
tell him her fears. So, why did [Appellant] not do anything
to avoid the worst? At least he would have checked the
surveillance cameras in their home.
Why was Samira not with him on the day of her death when they
went to the beach? Samira would not have accepted that
[Appellant] was busy. We all know that [Appellant] had
abducted their two girls and left with his mistress, so why
the day of her death did [Appellant] supposedly meet [the
mother of one of his other children] en route before going to
Samira's body was found in the pool. Certainly, it does
not – it was not there to swim that day if she would
part with her children and her husband at the beach. Why did
[Appellant] rush to cremate the body of Samira?
There are so many that lead us to say that [Appellant] is
responsible for the murder of Samira. Whether he murdered her
or he is the sponsor. And we are certain that he could never