ADALBERTO PLASENCIA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Adalberto Plasencia was convicted of manslaughter, and the trial court admitted a certified copy of his prior conviction for escape to prove flight from custody. The appellate court reversed, holding that while evidence of flight is admissible, introducing the fact of a conviction for escape is improperly prejudicial and violates the rules of evidence.
The court held that while evidence of the fact of flight is admissible to show consciousness of guilt, the probative value of introducing a certified copy of a conviction for escape is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Florida law. The admission was not harmless error given the state's emphasis on the conviction during opening and closing arguments.
[1] Evidence of flight from police custody may be admissible to show consciousness of guilt.
[2] A certified copy of a conviction for escape is not admissible to prove the fact of flight.
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“On these facts evidence of flight proper under Hernandez may not be proved by introduction of a certified copy of a conviction for escape. It is the fact of flight that tends to show a consciousness of guilt, Hernandez, 397 So.2d at 436, not the fact of a conviction for escape.”
Establishes the core holding: flight itself is admissible evidence of consciousness of guilt, but a conviction for escape improperly shifts focus to the fact of conviction rather than flight.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlasencia was arrested and placed in an interrogation room at the Miami Police Department, from which he escaped. He was recaptured five hours later. …
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 Flight Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
Adalberto Plasencia was convicted of manslaughter. He alleges as error the trial court permitting the state to introduce a certified copy of his conviction for the crime of escape. We agree with his contention and reverse.
Following his arrest Plasencia was taken to the City of Miami Police Department and placed in an interrogation room from which he subsequently escaped. Pla-sencia was recaptured some five hours later. Prior to trial in the case sub judice Plasen-cia pled guilty to the escape charge for which he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to one year. In anticipation of a flight instruction the state advised the trial court that it intended to prove up the flight by way of a certified copy of the escape conviction. Plasencia concedes that evidence regarding his flight from police custody was proper, see Hernandez v. State, 397 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), but argues that the fact of his plea of guilty and subsequent felony conviction for the crime of escape was improperly placed before the jury.1 The state’s reliance on Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959), is misplaced. On these facts evidence of flight proper under Hernandez may not be proved by introduction of a certified copy of a conviction for escape. It is the fact of flight that tends to show a consciousness of guilt, Hernandez, 397 So. 2d at 436, not the fact of a conviction for escape. The probative value of the conviction is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See State v. Vazquez, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1982); § 90.403, Fla.Stat. (1981).
The state’s alternative argument, that the admission of the conviction is harmless, is devoid of merit in light of its argument on opening and closing emphasizing the conviction.2
Plasencia also argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a firearm. We find no error in that denial. The undisputed evidence before the trial court was that the defendant’s wife claimed ownership of the weapon and voluntarily delivered it to the police officers during the investigation. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
. We deem it significant that Plasencia did not testify at trial, thus neither section 90.608(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), nor section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1981), are implicated.
. On opening statement the prosecutor made the following remarks to the jury:
They put him back into custody, and they charge him with escape, an additional charge in addition to attempted murder. They bring him back to the police station.
We know about a month and a'half ago, six weeks ago, on July 13th, 1981, the defendant in this courthouse pled guilty. He pled guilty to the charge of escape, the escape from custody for the murder, and he was sentenced to one year. He was adjudicated a convicted felon.
And on closing statement the prosecutor reinforced the fact of the conviction with these remarks:
We know that on July 13, 1981, by a document filed in this court, Circuit Court of this circuit, Adalberto Plasencia, under Case No. 81-10239, the charge of escape, was convicted and sentenced for the charge of escape for that very same charge.
* * * * * *
We know, of course, the person who pled guilty — the proof is quite clear. The person who pled guilty — this defendant pled guilty to the escape from the City of Miami Police Department that night. He pled guilty on July 13 th.
He was fingerprinted, and those fingerprints appear on the document. That is how we ultimately know all these things. His set of fingerprints appear on this.
As a convicted felon, he had to put his prints down.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacIas v. State, 673 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ee also Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 894, 107 S.Ct. 295, 93 L.Ed.2d 269 (1986) (jury could reasonably infer consciousness of guilt from defendant’s flight six days after victim’s disappearance); Plasencia v. State, 426 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 436 So. 2d 100 (Fla. [*185] 1983) (evidence of flight from police custody is proper). As our court observed in Jackson v. State, 435 So. 2d 984, 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), “there is a great distinction between the admiss…
-
Fenelon v. State, 594 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1992)
Authorities Cited
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1971)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- State v. Vazquez, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1982)
- Valentin Hernandez v. State, 397 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)