JAMES W. LEONARD, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
James Leonard appeals his conviction for attempted possession of marijuana, challenging the trial court's allowance of prosecutor cross-examination regarding the nature of his prior criminal convictions. The court reversed, holding that Florida law limits cross-examination of a defendant who testifies to whether he has been convicted of a crime and how many times, but does not permit inquiry into the nature of those convictions unless the defendant opened the door through detailed inquiry on direct examination.
The trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to inquire into the nature of Leonard's prior convictions. Florida law permits cross-examination limited to whether a defendant has been convicted of a crime and how many times; unless the defendant answers untruthfully, the prosecution's inquiry must stop there. The mere fact that a defendant admits prior convictions on direct examination to reduce their damaging effect does not authorize the state to exceed the permissible scope of cross-examination.
[1] A defendant who testifies on direct examination regarding the number of prior criminal convictions may not be cross-examined as to the nature of those convictions unless…
[2] A prosecutor's inquiry into the nature of a defendant's prior criminal convictions on cross-examination is impermissible if the defendant only testified truthfully as to…
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“The rule in Florida has long been established that a defendant who testifies on his own behalf may be asked on cross-examination whether he has ever been convicted of a crime and, if so, how many times. Unless the defendant answers untruthfully, the prosecution's inquiry along this line must stop.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard limiting cross-examination on prior convictions to fact and number only
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeonard testified on his own behalf and admitted on direct examination that he had been convicted of crimes three times, without elaborating on the na…
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 Opening The Door (Evidentiary Rule) cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
James W. Leonard appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted possession of marijuana. We hold that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine appellant as to the nature of his prior criminal convictions; we therefore reverse.
At trial, appellant testified on his own behalf. On direct examination defense counsel asked:
Q Let me ask you this, Jim, have you ever been convicted of a crime?
A Yes.
Q How many times?
A Three times.
Defense counsel asked no further questions concerning appellant’s prior convictions, and there is no contention that appellant’s testimony as to the number of his convictions was anything other than truthful. On cross-examination, however, the prosecutor was allowed over defense objection to inquire into the nature of appellant’s prior convictions. They included a conviction of possession of marijuana, as well as convictions for burglary and night prowling.
The rule in Florida has long been established that a defendant who testifies on his own behalf may be asked on cross-examination whether he has ever been convicted of a crime and, if so, how many times. Unless the defendant answers untruthfully, the prosecution’s inquiry along this line must stop. Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla.1976); McArthur v. Cook, 99 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1957); Mead v. State, 86 So. 2d 773 (Fla.1956); Whitehead v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).
The trial court ruled that the challenged inquiry was proper because defense counsel had “opened the door” on direct examination. We agree that further inquiry by the prosecutor would have been proper had defense counsel “opened the door” by inquiring into the circumstances or dates of any of the crimes, or by inquiring into the nature of one or two of appellant’s prior convictions, as occurred in Dodson v. State, 356 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 360 So. 2d 1248 (Fla.1978). In Dodson the defendant testified and admitted on direct examination that he had been convicted of auto theft twelve years previously. Defense counsel then inquired whether defendant had been convicted of “other crimes” and of “other felonies,” to which defendant responded that he had been. On cross-examination, the prosecutor inquired as to the nature of the “other crimes.” The trial court and the appellate court held the testimony admissible and properly so.
The defense counsel here stayed within the confines of accepted inquiry and made no attempt to mislead the jury, as appears to have been done in Dodson: The mere fact that appellant sought to reduce the damaging effect of his prior convictions by admitting them on direct examination rather than waiting to have them brought out on cross-examination does not authorize the state to inquire further than it would otherwise have been allowed to.
We hold that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the state over timely objection to exceed the permissible scope of cross-examination. Whitehead v. State, supra.
We find no merit in the remaining points raised by appellant.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for new trial.
SCHEB, C. J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Konstantinos X. Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1992)…ess the witness answers untruthfully, this inquiry is generally restricted to the existence of prior convictions and the number of convictions. Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla.1976); McArthur v. Cook, 99 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1957); Leonard v. State, 386 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). However, when a defendant attempts to mislead or delude the jury about his prior convictions, the State is entitled to further question the defendant concerning the convictions in order to negate any false impression given. S…
-
Bozeman v. State, 698 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…innocuous question posed by defense counsel to Wimberly was hardly the type of deceptive conduct by a defendant that opens the door to evidence of prior bad acts. See Gonzalez v. State, 538 So. 2d 1343, 1345-46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Leonard v. State, 386 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Andrews v. State, 172 So. 2d 505, 507-OS (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). The offensive testimony was not responsive to any misleading statement made by the defendant during his direct examination. The defendant did not place his reputation…
-
Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1986)…State, 86 So. 2d 773 (Fla.1956); Noeling v. State, 40 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1949); Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187, 200 So. 525 (1941); Madison v. State, 138 Fla. 467, 189 So. 832 (1939); Sneed v. State, 397 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Leonard v. State, 386 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Goodman v. State, 336 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 342 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1977). In Noeling v. State, 40 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1949), the state on cross-examination of the defendant asked him whether he had ever been c…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- Blackman v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Mead v. State, 86 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1956)
- Dodson v. State, 356 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)