DeCastro v. State
The Third DCA held that a trial judge exceeded the proper scope of review when, in denying a mid-trial motion to disqualify, the judge factually disputed the allegations of bias instead of only assessing legal sufficiency. Because the judge's response itself established grounds for disqualification under Bundy and Chiu, and the State failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless (the victim's credibility was central to the case), the court reversed for a new trial before a different judge.
Key facts
- Defendant moved to disqualify the trial judge mid-trial based on allegations of bias and partiality.
- The judge denied the disqualification motion by factually disputing and refuting the allegations of bias rather than assessing only their legal sufficiency.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion reinforces and applies the well-settled but frequently litigated rule that a judge facing a disqualification motion cannot factually rebut the allegations without thereby confirming the need for recusal. It… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.