ANDREW RUSSO, 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.
The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination and exclusion of impeachment testimony was harmful error requiring reversal.
Andrew Russo was convicted of witness tampering for allegedly attempting to induce two individuals to testify falsely. A key state witness, John Tilli…
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 Tampering cases and more on FLexlaw
CURTIS, CLINTON A., Associate Judge.
Andrew Russo challenges his conviction for two counts of witness tampering. He was accused of attempting to induce two persons, Anna Chisholm and John Tillis, to testify falsely in an impending trial.
We must reverse the trial court’s judgment of guilt and ten year sentence because cross-examination of Tillis was restricted and impeachment testimony of defense witnesses against Tillis was excluded.
John Tillis was a crucial witness without whom the state’s case would have been greatly weakened, in that he was the only witness to testify that Russo offered to pay him to testify falsely. Yet, the trial court sustained the state’s objections to proffered testimony and ruled that defense counsel could not ask Tillis about his own past attempts to testify falsely and to make himself unavailable as a witness in previous litigation.
In addition, testimony of three witnesses who were involved in Tillis’ past misconduct was excluded by the trial court on the basis that they would not be testifying as to any facts surrounding the instant case and that they were not character witnesses.
We can find no justification for the restriction of appropriate cross-examination and exclusion of the testimony of these three defense witnesses. Because Tillis’ story was so crucial to the state’s case, omission of any evidence relating directly to his credibility was harmful and prejudicial to the defense. Godorov v. State, 365 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1979); Williams v. State, 386 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
Therefore, the judgment and sentence must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
DANAHY, A. C. J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Livingston v. State, 565 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1988)…rete. This ease is a far cry from cases such as Alvarez v. State, 467 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 476 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1985); Kelly v. State, 425 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), review denied, 434 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1983); and Russo v. State, 418 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), where limiting the cross-examination of a sole witness or a star witness constituted reversible error. Therefore, we find the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We likewise find no reversible error in the investigat…
-
Jaggers v. State, 536 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Taylor v. State, 455 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Brown v. State, 424 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Three cases from this court are directly on point. Pollard v. State, 444 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Russo v. State, 418 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Williams v. State, 386 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In Pollard, the appellant was charged with lewd and lascivious assault upon a child. Pollard, on cross-examination, attempted to explore the victim’s background in order to su…
-
Watts v. State, 450 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…101 (Fla.1979). Denial of effective cross-examination in such circumstances constitutes constitutional error requiring reversal unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Davis; Steinhorst; Garey; Hannah; Kelly; Moreno; Russo v. State, 418 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Mendez; Engram v. State, 405 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), petition for rev. denied, 417 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1982); Daniels. In the case before us, the trial court erred in restricting the appellant’s cross-examination of both Rue…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clementine Williams v. State, 386 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Godorov v. State, 365 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)