JAMES FRANKLIN MCINTOSH, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed defendant McIntosh's burglary conviction because the prosecutor improperly cross-examined him about the nature of his prior convictions during trial. The court held that once a defendant admits to and accurately states the number of prior convictions, questioning about the nature of those crimes is reversible error.
The prosecutor's question about the nature of prior convictions was improper prosecutorial error and constituted reversible error. Once a defendant admits to and accurately states the number of prior convictions, questioning must cease unless the defendant has opened the door to further inquiry. The motion for mistrial was sufficiently timely and specific to preserve the issue for appeal, and a curative instruction could not have remedied the prejudicial impact of the error.
[1] A motion for mistrial is sufficiently timely and specific to preserve an issue for appellate review when made shortly after the alleged error and before the jury begins d…
[2] When a defendant admits to prior convictions and accurately states their number, the prosecution may not ask further questions regarding the nature of those crimes.
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“when a defendant admits to prior convictions and accurately states their number, the questioning should cease unless the defendant has opened the door to further inquiry”
Establishes the governing rule that prosecution cannot continue questioning about prior convictions once defendant has admitted to them and stated their number
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was charged with burglary of a conveyance. On direct examination, defendant admitted to eight prior convictions and volunteered he was on pa…
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 Improper Cross-Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
HURLEY, Judge.
Prosecutorial error during cross-examination compels the reversal of defendant’s conviction and sentence.
Defendant was charged with burglary of a conveyance.1 On direct examination, he admitted to having eight convictions and volunteered that he was on parole. On cross-examination, the prosecutor recovered this ground and then asked, “What were you on parole for?” The defendant responded, “burglary.” Defense counsel did not interpose an immediate objection, but did move for a mistrial a few moments later. In our view, the motion for mistrial was sufficiently timely and specific to preserve the point for appellate review.
It is elemental that “when a defendant admits to prior convictions and accurately states their number, the questioning should cease unless the defendant has opened the door to further inquiry.” Martin v. State, 411 So. 2d 987, 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). “[T]he prosecution 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 error and, consequently, we hold that it was reversible error not to have granted defendant’s motion for mistrial.
Accordingly, defendant’s conviction and sentence are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LETTS, C.J., and DELL, J., concur. . § 810.02(1), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cummings v. State, 412 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Cochran v. Cochran, 412 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Ashley v. State, 411 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- COE v. State, 411 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Bain v. State, 422 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)