FREDERICK D. STEESE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Frederick Steese was convicted of bigamy, with a crucial element being whether he possessed a forged divorce decree. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction because the trial judge improperly allowed the prosecutor to compel Steese to disclose the specific nature of his prior criminal convictions during cross-examination.
A defendant in a criminal case who has taken the witness stand may be cross-examined as to whether he has been convicted of crime, but such cross-examination may not require him to disclose the particular crimes of which he was convicted unless those prior convictions were for perjury. The trial judge erred in requiring Steese to answer about the specific nature of his prior convictions.
“While a defendant in a criminal case who has taken the witness stand in his own behalf may be questioned on cross examination as to whether or not he has ever been convicted of crime, the cross examination may not be pressed to the extent, if the accused admits to previous convictions, of requiring him to disclose the particular crimes of which he has been convicted, unless the previous convictions have been for the crime of perjury.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for cross-examination of a testifying defendant about prior convictions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteese was tried and convicted of bigamy in the Criminal Court of Record of Orange County, Florida. A key issue in the case was whether a paper produc…
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 Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was tried and convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Orange County, Florida, for the crime of *617bigamy. An important element in the case was whether or not a paper writing produced by the appellant purporting to be a certified copy of a final decree of divorce from a former wife was genuine or forged. During the course of the trial the prosecuting attorney, over proper objection, was permitted to ask the appellant on cross examination, and the appellant was required to answer, whether or not he had ever been convicted of crime, and if so, the character or nature of the crime of which he had been convicted. The answer of the appellant, which he was required to make despite objections made by him, was that he had been convicted of forgery and for “obtaining money under false pretenses, or various allied misdemeanors.” The appellant has taken an appeal from the judgment and sentence and has assigned as error the action of the trial judge in overruling the objections to the questions propounded on cross examination and requiring the appellant to answer.
The judgment appealed from must be reversed and a new trial awarded upon the ground of appeal assigned. While a defendant in a criminal case who has taken the witness stand in his own behalf may be questioned on cross examination as to whether or not he has ever been convicted of crime, the cross examination may not be pressed to the extent, if the accused admits to previous convictions, of requiring him to disclose the particular crimes of which he has been convicted, unless the previous convictions have been for the crime of perjury. See Watts v. State, (Fla.) 34 So. (2nd) 429.
The judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial awarded.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.