VICTOR VALENTINE WROBEL, 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.
Wrobel was convicted of trafficking in stolen property after the trial court granted the state's motion to prohibit him from testifying that he had never been convicted of a crime. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Florida law permits character evidence only through reputation testimony, not through evidence of the absence of prior convictions.
A defendant may not prove good character through evidence of the absence of prior criminal convictions. Under Florida Statutes sections 90.404 and 90.405, character evidence is limited to reputation testimony, and the trial court properly excluded Wrobel's proposed testimony.
[1] Evidence of a defendant's character trait is admissible to prove that the defendant acted in conformity with that trait on a particular occasion only when offered by the…
[2] In Florida, when character evidence is admissible, proof must be made by testimony about the person's reputation.
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“It is clear that nothing under section 90.405 nor in the case law of Florida authorizes the defense to introduce evidence of the absence of prior criminal convictions as a substitute for reputation testimony, even when it has been pre-determined under section 90.404 that evidence of character or a trait of character is admissible under the facts of a given case.”
Establishes the core holding that absence of prior convictions cannot be used as character evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWrobel was charged with trafficking in stolen property. The state moved in limine to prohibit defense counsel from asking Wrobel during direct examina…
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 Specific Instances Of Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Appellant Wrobel was charged with trafficking in stolen property. The state moved in limine to prohibit defense counsel from asking Wrobel during direct examination whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, which Wrobel had not. The trial court granted the state’s motion. The case went to the jury, and Wrobel was found guilty of dealing in stolen property. The trial court adjudged Wrobel guilty and sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment. Wrobel timely appeals.
The appellant argues that a defendant in a criminal trial has the right to introduce evidence to show his good character. This argument is based on section 90.404(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979):
Character evidence; when admissible.—
(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY. — Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is inadmissible to prove that he acted in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except: (a) Character of accused. — Evidence of a pertinent trait of his character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
This argument, however, omits the pertinent reference to section 90.405, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides the methods of proving character. This statute reads: Methods of proving character.—
(1) REPUTATION. — When evidence of the character of a person or of a trait of hia character is admissible, proof may be made by testimony about his reputation.
(2) SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CONDUCT. — When character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may be made of specific instances of his conduct.
In Florida, the method of presenting character evidence is limited to testimony of reputation. Maloy v. State, 52 Fla. 101, 41 So. 791 (1906). A defendant may place in issue his general reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen. See Cornelius v. State, 49 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1950).
It is clear that nothing under section 90.405 nor in the case law of Florida authorizes the defense to introduce evidence of the absence of prior criminal convictions as a substitute for reputation testimony, even when it has been pre-determined under section 90.404 that evidence of character or a trait of character is admissible under the facts of a given case.
While no Florida case has dealt directly with the issue presented herein, other jurisdictions have held that the good character of an accused may not be proved by testimony that he has never been previously charged with or convicted of a criminal offense. See, e.g., Hendricks v. State, 281 Ala. 376, 202 So. 2d 738 (1967); City of Chicago v. Lowy, 40 Ill.App.3d 950, 353 N.E. 2d 208 (1976); State v. Oliver, 247 La. 729, 174 So. 2d 509 (1965); Smith v. State, 414 S.W. 2d 659 (Tex.Crim.App.1967).
According, the trial court was eminently correct in granting the state’s motion in limine, and the judgment and sentence are
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and COWART, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyatt v. State, 578 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…estifying that the defendant does not fit the profile of a pedophile. Additionally, section 90.405, Florida Statutes (1987), specifically limits the introduction of character evidence to reputation or specific instances of conduct. Wrobel v. State, 410 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1982). This statute does not permit evidence of character to be made by opinion. See Alvarado v. State, 521 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In the instant case, the defendant sought to introduce evid…
-
Roges Previlon v. State, 500 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ence. Appellant pulled a gun and shot his victim in the leg, causing scarring and a permanent disability. The shooting took place in a crowded theater. We find appellant’s objection to eviden-tiary rulings to be without merit. See Wrobel v. State, 410 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1982). See also Sanchez v. State, 445 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Appellant contends that conviction of these two offenses based upon the same criminal act violates the constitutional prohibition a…
-
Brunson v. State, 31 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…r an abuse of discretion standard. Hudson v. State, 992 So. 2d 96, 109 (Fla.2008). Ordinarily, evidence that appellant had never been arrested would be inadmissible in Florida. See Welch v. State, 940 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Wrobel v. State, 410 So. 2d 950, 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). However, “ ‘[a]s an evidentiary principle, the concept of ‘opening the door’ allows the admission of otherwise inadmissible testimony to ‘qualify, explain, or limit’ testimony or evidence previously admitted. The concept of…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cornelius v. State, 49 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1950)
- Maloy v. State, 52 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1906)