Opinion ID: 1779107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Cumulative Impact of Allegedly Improper Evidence

Text: Dufour asserts that he was prejudiced by the cumulative impact of improper evidence that was presented to the jury. Specifically, Dufour alleges that there is a reasonable probability that the trial court requiring Dufour to appear in court shackled improperly influenced the jury; [5] that the jury was tainted by knowledge that a juror was excused because her husband received a strange telephone call; [6] that the defense should have been allowed to interview the jurors; [7] that the victim's sister's testimony prejudiced the defense; [8] and that the State improperly placed Dufour's sexuality at issue. [9] All of the facts pertaining to this claim were known at the time of appeal. Therefore, we affirm the lower court's conclusion that this claim should have been presented on direct appeal. See Jones v. State, 845 So.2d 55, 72 n. 38 (Fla.2003) (determining that the procedural bar was correctly determined by the lower court because the defendant's claim that the trial judge improperly considered victim impact evidence could have and should have been presented on direct appeal); see also Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Fla.1995); Roberts v. State, 568 So.2d 1255, 1258 (Fla.1990).