CAJUSTE V. STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM A.D., 2004 MICHAEL CAJUSTE, ** ** Appellant, vs. ** CASE NO. 3D02-3081 ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ** Appellee. LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 00-16848B ** Opinion filed June 9, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose Rodriguez, Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Andrew M. Teschner, Special Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Consuelo Maingot, Assistant Attorney General, and Adrienne Sampson, Certified Legal Intern, for appellee. Before COPE, FLETCHER and RAMIREZ, JJ. PER CURIAM. Michael Cajuste appeals his convictions for first degree murder, attempted murder, and attempted armed robbery. We conclude that the trial court s rulings on voir dire questions were within the court s discretion, as was the court s refusal to grant additional peremptory challenges. See Hooper v. State, 476 So. 2d 1253, 1256 (Fla. 1985); Parker v. State, 456 So. 2d 436, 442 (Fla. 1984). We conclude that there was no impermissible shifting of the burden of proof. See Caballero v. State, 851 So. 2d 655, 660 (Fla. 203); Evans v. State, 838 So. 2d 1090, 1094-95 (Fla. 2002) cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 121 (2003). were within the court s discretion. The evidentiary rulings To the extent it could be said that the prosecutor argued that defendant-appellant Cajuste was fleeing from the scene of the crime, this was a fair comment on the evidence and was not objected to at trial. Affirmed. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.