RONALD ROLLE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ronald Rolle appeals his grand larceny conviction, challenging the trial judge's refusal to allow cross-examination of a prosecution witness about an ongoing perjury investigation. The court affirms, holding that while defendants may generally cross-examine prosecution witnesses about pending criminal charges to show bias, the trial court properly excluded inquiry into the specific offense of perjury when only under investigation (not yet convicted).
The trial judge properly excluded the question. While defendants have an absolute right to interrogate prosecution witnesses about pending or recent criminal charges or investigations to show possible motive or self-interest, this right does not extend to disclosing the specific offense of perjury when the witness is merely under investigation rather than convicted, as doing so would invite jury speculation about investigative results without evidence or proof.
[1] A witness may not be interrogated as to prior arrests or pending charges, but only as to prior convictions.
[2] An accused has the right to interrogate a prosecution witness who is presently or was recently under actual or threatened criminal charges or investigation to show possib…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an accused has the absolute right to interrogate a prosecution witness who is presently or was recently under actual or threatened criminal charges or investigation leading to such charges so that the jury will be fully apprised as to the witness' possible motive or self-interest with respect to the testimony he gives”
Establishes the recognized exception to the general rule restricting cross-examination about pending charges, allowing inquiry when charges or investigations exist to show bias
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald Rolle was convicted of grand larceny. During trial, Rolle sought to cross-examine a prosecution witness with a question designed to reveal that…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissibility Of Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Rolle was convicted of grand larceny, and he now brings this appeal on several grounds.
One of the points raised is that Rolle’s right to confront witnesses was violated when the trial judge would not allow a question of a prosecution witness for the announced purpose of showing bias and self-interest of that witness.
The proffered question was:
“Isn’t it true that today you are presently under investigation, an active investigation by the state attorney’s office for perjury alleged to have occurred while you testified in Judge Alan R. Schwartz’ courtroom approximately three weeks ago?” The basic general rule is that a witness may not be interrogated as to prior arrests or pending charges, but only as to prior convictions. Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla.1976). If the witness admits a conviction, he cannot be examined to the point of naming the crime for which he was convicted. McArthur v. Cook, 99 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1957). If the witness denies a prior conviction, the specific offense is identified only incidentally when the record of the conviction is entered into evidence. Fulton v. State, supra.
The prohibitions of this rule have been relaxed so that it has been firmly established that an accused has the absolute right to interrogate a prosecution witness who is presently or was recently under actual or threatened criminal charges or investigation leading to such charges so that the jury will be fully apprised as to the witness’ possible motive or self-interest with respect to the testimony he gives. Cowheard v. State, 365 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Stripling v. State, 349 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Morrell v. State, 297 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
Here, through the proffered question, Rolle seeks to have the basic rule relaxed still further so that he may disclose to the jury that the specific crime of perjury is the subject crime in the investigation, and further, that the investigation was commenced at the direction of a specific trial judge following his presiding over a completely unrelated case. While we acknowledge that this court has agreed that a conviction of perjury has greater weight against the credibility of a witness than any other crime, and that such a conviction may be disclosed to a jury, Johnson v. State, 361 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), we do not wish to enlarge this exception to permit disclosure of the specific offense of perjury prior to a conviction. To do so would invite speculation by a jury as to the results of the investigation of the witness without benefit of evidence or proof which could very well unduly prejudice a jury against a witness. Meanwhile, upon cross-examining such a witness to show bias or self-interest, an accused would unduly and unfairly gain just as much advantage from a perjury investigation as a perjury conviction, thus enjoying a full and complete exception to the general rule restricting examination of a witness as to criminal convictions and investigations. With this we cannot agree, and we find that the trial judge properly ruled on the proffered question.
We have examined the other issues raised by Rolle and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powe v. State, 413 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); McDuffie v. State, 341 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). This right has been specifically extended to defense interrogation of a prosecution witness who was recently under the threat of criminal charges. Rolle v. State, 386 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We find that whether Michel knew of the minimum mandatory penalty for a conviction of trafficking in methaqualone may have impacted significantly on the plea-bargaining agreement and on Michel’s willingness to testify against Pow…
-
David v. The City OF Jacksonville, 534 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…So. 2d 565 (Fla.1957); Parks v. Zitnik, 453 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The basic rule is that a witness may not be interrogated concerning prior arrests or pending charges, but only as to prior convictions as defined in § 90.610. Rolle v. State, 386 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). “Arrest, without more, does not, in law any more than in reason, impeach the integrity of a witness.” Harmon v. State, 394 So. 2d 121, 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The questions and answers about David’s arrest history and incarce…
-
Frias v. State, 627 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…[*139] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Livingston v. State, 565 So. 2d 1288, 1291 (Fla.1988); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Francis v. State, 473 So. 2d 672, 674-75 (Fla.1985); Rolle v. State, 386 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla.1980); Oliva v. State, 346 So. 2d 1066, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 348 So. 2d 951 (Fla.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1010, 98 S.Ct. 719, 54 L.Ed.2d 752 (1978).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1976)
- McARTHUR v. Cook, 99 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1957)
- Morrell v. State, 297 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Stripling v. State, 349 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Cowheard v. State, 365 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Johnson v. State, 361 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)