W. T. PARKER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court held that a state may refuse a defendant's offer to stipulate to a prior felony conviction and instead prove the conviction through a certified judgment when the prior conviction is an essential element of the crime charged. The court resolved a conflict between district court decisions on this evidentiary issue.
The state may refuse a defendant's stipulation and prove a prior conviction by certified copy when it is an essential element of the crime. The probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or other traditional exclusionary grounds, and the trial court has discretion to admit it.
[1] A prior felony conviction is an essential element of the crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
[2] The state is not bound by a defendant's offer to stipulate to an essential element of a crime.
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 state is not bound by the defendant's offer to stipulate to essential elements of the crime, stating that exclusion of such relevant evidence is left to the discretion of the trial court based on traditional grounds”
Establishes the core holding that prosecution may refuse stipulations to essential elements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParker was charged with two counts of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. To prove the possession charge, the state i…
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 Unfair Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
McDONALD, Justice.
On the basis of express conflict of decisions, Parker asks us to review a ruling of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, reported as Parker v. State, 389 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We have jurisdiction1 and approve Parker. Parker was charged with two counts of aggravated assault and with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In proving the possession charge the state introduced, over objection, a certified copy of a judgment and sentence2 for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny to establish Parker’s prior conviction. Defense counsel had offered to stipulate to the previous conviction, but the state refused the offer. The question before us is whether the state may refuse a defendant’s offer to stipulate to a prior felony conviction and prove the conviction by the use of a certified copy of the judgment when the fact of the conviction is an essential element of the crime charged.
We previously held in Arrington v. State, 233 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1970), that the state is not bound by the defendant’s offer to stipulate to essential elements of the crime, stating that exclusion of such relevant evidence is left to the discretion of the trial court based on traditional grounds. Section 790.23(1), Florida Statutes (1977), prohibiting the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, makes a prior conviction an essential element of the crime. Therefore, proof of conviction is relevant evidence and is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.3
In the present case the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by any of these considerations. The decision of the district court is approved. We disapprove Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979), to the extent it conflicts with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . Conflict with Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Art. V § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. . The certified copy was similar to the form set out in rule 3.986 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
.§§ 90.402 and 90.403, Fla.Stat. (1979). Although not in effect at the time of Parker’s trial, § 90.403 codified the then pre-existing case law governing the admissibility of evidence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (35 total)
-
Linehan v. State, 476 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1985)…, 402 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1981) (battery on police officer); Presley v. State, 388 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (burglary); Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (escape from protective custody), overruled on other grounds, Parker v. State, 408 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1982). Florida courts have rejected the voluntary intoxication defense in the following cases involving general intent crimes. Gentry v. State, 437 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1983) (attempted second-degree murder); Askew v. State, 118 So. 2d 219 (Fla.19…
-
State v. Vazquez, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1982)…tion is relevant evidence and is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Parker v. State, 408 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla.1982) (footnote omitted). The district court correctly concluded3 that the documentary evidence establishing Vazquez’ prior conviction could and should have been introduced to establish count II. The district court also correctly stated,4…1 / 2
-
State v. Harbaugh, 754 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2000)…gment in order to evidence a defendant’s prior DUI convictions and shall not develop the facts underlying any such offense unless the defendant contests the validity thereof at trial. See State v. Vazquez, 419 So. 2d 1088 at 1091 (Fla.1982); Parker, 408 So. 2d 1037 at 1038. Furthermore, based on our recent decision in Brown v. State, 719 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1998), the State and the trial court should accept a defendant’s stipulation to three prior misdemeanor DUI convictions. As in Brown, where a defendant stipula…
Previewing 3 of 35 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Parker v. State, 389 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Arrington v. State, 233 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1970)