DONALD ELLIS LOWERY, 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.
Donald Lowery was convicted of uttering a forged check. On appeal, he challenged three evidentiary rulings: the exclusion of cross-examination regarding a prior statement, the admission of testimony about his failure to provide handwriting samples, and the admission of a photocopy of a photocopy of the check. The court affirmed his conviction, finding no error in any of the trial court's evidentiary decisions.
The trial court did not err on any of the three points. First, the statement was properly excluded as a self-serving declaration not part of res gestae, and Lowery failed to properly preserve the issue for appeal by not making a proffer. Second, evidence of refusal to submit to a compulsory scientific test is admissible against the accused. Third, the photocopy of a photocopy was admissible because the statute's restriction on negotiable instrument duplicates applies to civil cases, not criminal cases, and Florida law no longer recognizes degrees of secondary evidence.
[1] Self-serving declarations made by a defendant at the time of arrest, which do not form part of the res gestae, are generally inadmissible in a criminal case.
[2] A defendant's failure to preserve an issue for appellate review by making a proffer of excluded testimony precludes appellate consideration of that issue.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Where self-serving declarations do not form a part of the res gestae, they should ordinarily be excluded from a criminal case.”
Establishes the doctrine for excluding Lowery's prior statement made at arrest.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLowery was tried and convicted of uttering a forged check in violation of Florida Statutes § 831.02. During discovery, the court ordered Lowery to pro…
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 Res Gestae cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Donald Lowery a/k/a Arthur Moore was tried and convicted of uttering a forged check in violation of section 831.02, Florida Statutes (1979). Lowery raises three points on this appeal of his conviction.
First, Lowery contends that the trial court erred in not allowing him to cross-examine two of the state’s witnesses with regard to a statement made by Lowery at the time of his arrest in a similar uttering of a forged check situation that had been introduced for purposes of identification. Where self-serving declarations do not form a part of the res gestae, they should ordinarily be excluded from a criminal case. Jenkins v. State, 58 Fla. 62, 50 So. 582 (1909); Watkins v. State, 342 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 680 (Fla.1977).
Moreover, Lowery did not make any proffer of what the excluded testimony would have been and, therefore, this point has not been properly preserved for appellate review. Ritter’s Hotel v. Sidebothom, 142 Fla. 171, 194 So. 322 (1940); Atlantic Distributors, Inc. v. Alson Mfg. Co., 141 So. 2d 305 (Fla.3d DCA 1962).
Second, Lowery contends that the trial court erred in allowing testimony to be introduced regarding Lowery’s failure to appear for the taking of his handwriting samples. During the course of discovery, the state had moved for the trial court to order Lowery to give samples of his handwriting, and the trial court had done so in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220.
However, Lowery never complied with the order. Prior to trial, the defense moved in limine to prohibit the state from mentioning the fact that Lowery had been ordered to give his handwriting samples to the state and that he had not done so.
The trial court denied the motion.
The trial court’s ruling was not in error, since evidence of the refusal to submit to a scientific test is admissible against the accused if the test is both admissible and compulsory. State v. Duke, 378 So. 2d 96 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); State v. Esperti, 220 So. 2d 416 (Fla.2d DCA 1969).
Third, Lowery contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a photocopy of a photocopy of the original check, which the state had offered in place of the original check since the original had been lost by the police. His argument is two-fold. First, Lowery argues that a check is a negotiable instrument and, therefore, a duplicate of it is not admissible in place of the original pursuant to section 90.953, Florida Statutes (1979), which reads in pertinent part:
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless: (1) the document or writing is a negotiable instrument, as defined in section 673.104....
This portion of the above statute was enacted to provide for the introduction of an original negotiable instrument in court in order to prevent its further negotiation. 1 S. Gard, Florida Evidence § 6:04 (1980). Under this rationale, this portion of the statute is meant to apply in civil suits regarding the enforceability of the negotiable instrument and the statute is not meant to apply in criminal cases.
Moreover, the statute does not provide that a duplicate of a negotiable instrument would be inadmissible, it only provides that it would not be admissible to the same extent as the original.
Second, Lowery argues that the photocopy of the photocopy is not the best available secondary evidence. It is true that former Florida law recognized degrees of secondary evidence. Wicker v. Board of Public Instruction, 159 Fla. 430, 31 So. 2d 635 (1947).
However, section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1979), abolishes the distinction made between degrees of secondary evidence. Law Revision Counsel note section 90.954; Evidence in Florida § 8.11, The Florida Bar (2d ed. 1978).
Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting a photocopy of a photocopy of the original check.
AFFIRMED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for First Franklin Mortg. Loan Tr. 2006-FF7 v. Ezra Clarke, 87 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…n 90.953(1) exception is “that it protects the defendant against the possible negotiation of the note to a bona fide purchaser for value.” Am. Fin. Corp. v. Webb, 1 Conn.Cir.Ct. 230, 23 Conn.Supp. 346, 183 A. 2d 294, 295 (1962); see Lowery v. State, 402 So. 2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that a mortgage falls under the section 90.953(1) exception so that the plaintiff was required to offer the original mortgage at trial. A mortgage is not a “negotiable instrum…
-
Moore v. State, 530 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Watkins v. State, 342 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert, denied, 353 So. 2d 680 (Fla.1977); Logan v. State, 511 S6.2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Fagan v. State, 425 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Lowery v. State, 402 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Such statements cannot be offered against an accused during the state’s case-in-chief, because “[a] witness may not be impeached before he has testified.” Erp v. Carroll, 438 So. 2d 31, 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Gid-dens v. State,…
-
Alexander v. State, 627 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ur.2d Evidence § 621 (1967), the courts of this state have long recognized an exception to this general rule where the statements form a part of the res gestae of the alleged offense. Jenkins v. State, 58 Fla. 62, 50 So. 582 (1909); Lowery v. State, 402 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Watkins v. State, 342 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 680 (Fla.1977).2 [*44] Furthermore, Florida has followed a liberal rule concerning the admittance of res gestae statements. See Appell v. State, 250 So.…
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
- Ritter's Hotel, Inc. v. Sidebothom, 142 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1940)
- Jenkins v. State, 58 Fla. 62 (Fla. 1909)
- State v. Esperti, 220 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Watkins v. State, 342 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Wicker v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Dade Cnty., 159 Fla. 430 (Fla. 1947)
- Atl. Distribs., Inc. v. Alson Mfg. Co., Inc., 141 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- State v. Duke, 378 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)