ROBERTO CARVAJAL, APPELLANT,
v.
BEATRICE ADAMS, 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.
Carvajal appealed a civil judgment in favor of Adams arising from an incident where Carvajal shot into a van. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly denied Carvajal's motion for continuance, that any error in admitting police officer testimony about bullet penetration was harmless, and that the jury was not entitled to an instruction regarding Carvajal's acquittal on related criminal charges.
The trial court did not err in denying the continuance motion because the disputed doctor testimony was inconsequential. Even if the police officer's testimony was improperly admitted, any error was harmless given Carvajal's admissions and other evidence that he shot into the van. Carvajal was not entitled to a jury instruction regarding his acquittal on criminal charges, and the jury hearing testimony about the criminal investigation did not change this result since Carvajal himself introduced that testimony.
[1] A trial court does not err in denying a motion for continuance to secure a doctor's testimony when one of the matters is not in dispute and the other is inconsequential.
[2] The admission of expert testimony, even if the witness's qualifications are doubtful, may be harmless error when other evidence overwhelmingly supports the verdict.
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 trial court did not err in denying Carvajal's motion for continuance in order to secure by deposition the testimony of a doctor concerning two matters, one of which was not in dispute, and the other of which was inconsequential”
Establishes that the denial of continuance was proper because the sought testimony was either not disputed or inconsequential to the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarvajal shot into a van owned or associated with Adams. Carvajal was investigated and arrested for criminal charges arising from the incident but was…
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 Witness Qualification cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
We affirm the final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in favor of Adams upon a holding that (1) the trial court did not err in denying Carvajal’s motion for continuance in order to secure by deposition the testimony of a doctor concerning two matters, one of which was not in dispute, and the other of which was inconsequential, In re Gregory, 313 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1975); Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwald, 340 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); (2) even assuming, arguendo, the doubtful proposition that a police officer, an expert in small arms, but not a ballistics expert, was not qualified to testify that a bullet of a certain size was capable of penetrating the rubber stripping around a van window without touching glass or metal on the van, the admission of such testimony was harmless in light of Carvajal’s several admissions and other evidence that he shot into the van, Hughes v. Canal Insurance Company, 308 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); (3) Car-vajal was not entitled to have the jury instructed that he was acquitted of criminal charges arising out of the incident upon which this civil case was based, State v. DuBose, 152 Fla. 304, 11 So. 2d 477 (1943); see Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Company, 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); Moseley v. Ewing, 79 So. 2d 776 (Fla.1955); Stephens v. Duke, 42 So. 2d 361 (Fla.1949); Wirt v. Fraser, 158 Fla. 777, 30 So. 2d 174 (1947); Republic National Life Insurance Company v. Valdes, 348 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and the fact that the jury heard testimony about a criminal investigation and arrest of Carva-jal does not change this result, since Carva-jal himself was responsible for adducing this testimony, see Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Company, N. Y., N. A., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Augustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…eover, the defendants, not the plaintiff, adduced the major portion of this evidence, in any event, and should not, therefore, be heard to complain of its admission. City of Miami Beach v. Klein, 414 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Carvajal v. Adams, 405 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 412 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1982); Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Co., N.A., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1980). The trial court’s instructions to the jury were perfectly pr…
-
Dara v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc., 584 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…s. R.R., 547 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. dismissed, 549 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.1989); O’Brien v. Ortiz, 467 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 479 So. 2d 119 (Fla.1985); Carvajal v. Adams, 405 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1982); Bishop v. Watson, 367 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Regan Ins. Agency v. Krause & Sons, Inc., 325 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); §§ 90.401, 90.402, Fla.Stat. (1989).…
-
Kelley v. Mutnich, 481 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…idence of acquittal of defendants in a criminal prosecution was inadmissible, but pointed out that “[a] different result might have obtained if the defendants had initially brought the matter to the attention of the jury.” Semble: Carvajal v. Adams, 405 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1982); City of Miami Beach v. Klein, 414 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). And see, to the effect that this result is based upon the invited error rule, Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- In re Gregory v. Gregory, 313 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1975)
- Stevens v. Duke, 42 So.2d 361 (Fla. 1949)
- State v. Dubose, 152 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1943)
- Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Co., 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1956)
- Behar v. Se. Banks Tr. Co., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Erle L. Wirt v. Fraser, 158 Fla. 777 (Fla. 1947)
- Buckley Towers Condo., Inc. v. Buchwald, 340 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Moseley v. Ewing, 79 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1955)
- Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Valdes, 348 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)