HAROLD CLEVELAND BAIN, 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 prosecutor's question eliciting the nature of the defendant's prior conviction was improper and prejudicial.
[1] A prosecutor's cross-examination question inquiring into the specific nature of a defendant's prior conviction is improper when the defendant has already testified truthf…
[2] Evidence of the specific offense for which a defendant was previously convicted is inadmissible if it is not relevant to any issue in the current trial and serves only to…
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 intelligenceThe defendant, on trial for murder, testified he informed victims he was on life-time parole. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the crime for…
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 Criminal Propensity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Harold Cleveland Bain was tried by jury on charges of (1) murder in the first degree and (2) attempted murder in the first degree. He claimed self defense and took the stand in his own behalf. During direct examination, Bain had testified that he informed the victims that he did not want any trouble because he was on life-time parole. On cross, the prosecutor asked Bain, “[w]hat crime were you on life-time parole for?” Defense counsel objected but on proffer of the answer out of the jury’s presence the objection was overruled. Upon the jury’s return, Bain’s answer then disclosed to them his prior conviction for murder. His timely motion for mistrial was denied, the only error he asserts on appeal from conviction on both offenses. We reverse.
The prosecutor’s question introduced evidence of the specific offense for which appellant had been convicted. It was not relevant to any issue.1 The matter elicited by the improper question served only to establish the appellant’s criminal propensity. While the fact that a defendant has previously been convicted of a crime is relevant, once the witness has answered truthfully about the existence and the number of his prior convictions, it is improper to permit the prosecutor to inquire into the nature of those offenses. Whitehead v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1973); Sneed v. State, 397 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Goodman v. State, 418 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The error cannot be said to be harmless considering the fact that Bain’s credibility was necessarily a critical factor in the jury’s consideration of the case.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED. GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., (Retired) Associate Judge, concur. . Appellee contends that since Bain testified as to his state of mind, i.e., concern for the consequences of a violation of life-time parole, the nature of the crime for which he was on parole was relevant to his state of mind. We think that argument is not sound.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Farr v. State, 230 So. 3d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…y, the issue in this case basically boiled down to the credibility of appellant’s defense that he did not know the drugs were in the car. Where a case turns on the defendant’s credibility, it cannot be said that the error is harmless. Bain v. State, 422 So. 2d 962, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Livingston v. State, 682 So. 2d 591, 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Foster v. State, 182 So. 3d 3, 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). As such, we reverse and remand. Reversed and remanded. Gerber, C.J., and May, J., concur. , Appellant also…
-
McINTOSH v. State, 424 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…osecution may not ask further questions regarding prior convictions, and in particular the prosecution may not question the witness as to the nature of the crimes.” Cummings v. State, 412 So. 2d 436, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see also, Bain v. State, 422 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The fact that the defendant was on trial for burglary only served to compound the prejudicial impact of the improper question and answer. Given these facts, we do not believe that a curative instruction could have remedied the e…
Authorities Cited
- Blackman v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Sneed v. State, 397 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Goodman v. State, 418 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)