Case Name: Alberto BLASCO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-09-25
Citations: 680 So. 2d 1052
Docket Number: No. 94-2970
Parties: Alberto BLASCO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before COPE, GREEN and FLETCHER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 680
Pages: 1052–1059

Head Matter:
Alberto BLASCO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 94-2970.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 25, 1996.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Craig J. Trocino, Special Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Joni Braunstein, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before COPE, GREEN and FLETCHER, JJ.

Opinion:
FLETCHER, Judge.
Defendant Alberto Blasco has appealed his convictions for two counts of driving under the influence causing serious bodily injury and one count of driving under the influence causing personal injury. Blasco contends that because the court reporter's stenographic notes of the State's rebuttal witnesses were lost, and the reconstructed record is insufficient to provide meaningful appellate review, this Court should reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. After careful consideration, we conclude that the defendant is entitled to a new trial.
During the defense's case-in-ehief opinion testimony was received by the jury which conceivably could have raised a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. The State felt constrained to present witnesses in rebuttal to this defense opinion testimony. We shall never know whether it was this rebuttal testimony that led to the jury's verdicts or whether the defendant's opinion testimony was rejected for other reasons, thus, we cannot know the specific importance of the rebuttal. However, as the rebuttal testimony could have been the convincing factor of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, any error in regard thereto that was not harmless could have been the basis of reversal by this court (on proper appeal by Blasco). Unfortunately, because the notes are lost, and because the trial court's valiant attempt at reconstruction in the face of vague memories still leaves the record unresolved, we do not know, and are not capable of knowing, whether any reversible error was committed during rebuttal. For this reason we reverse the conviction and remand this matter for a new trial. See Rozier v. State, 669 So.2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
COPE, J., concurs.