Baptiste seeks review of his conviction of manslaughter with a deadly weapon, two counts of attempted manslaughter, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a minor. He argues that the jury’s verdict was coerced by the trial court’s issuance of a coercive jury charge. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal held that although the jury charge was coercive, Baptiste is not entitled to a new trial since Baptiste’s counsel did not move for mistrial or object to the coercive charge but instead agreed to it. Baptiste asks this Court for review because the Third DCA decision conflicts with another appellate court decision as to whether counsel’s agreement to a coercive jury charge precludes fundamental error review on direct appeal.

Related Videos