DAVID HARRIS, JR., 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.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed Harris's conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his motion for mistrial after a police detective testified that Harris had a 'prior felony past.' The inadmissible character evidence had a devastating impact on the jury that could not be cured by a cautionary instruction.
The trial court committed reversible error in denying the mistrial motion. The testimony was wholly inadmissible under the Williams rule because its sole relevance was to attack the defendant's character or show propensity to commit crime. The cautionary instruction did not cure the prejudicial impact because it did not explicitly instruct the jury that the testimony was inadmissible and should be disregarded. The error was not harmless given the strength of the defense's alibi evidence.
[1] Testimony regarding a defendant's prior felony record is inadmissible if its sole relevance is to attack character or show propensity to commit crime.
[2] The admission of inadmissible testimony concerning a defendant's prior felony record before a jury constitutes grounds for a mistrial.
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“the trial court committed reversible error in denying the defendant's timely motion for mistrial after a police detective, called at trial as a witness for the state, testified over objection before the jury that the defendant had a 'prior felony past.'”
Statement of the core holding—the trial court's denial of the mistrial motion was reversible error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial, a police detective called as a state witness testified over objection before the jury that the defendant had a 'prior felony past.' The …
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 Prejudicial Impact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to order a new trial. We hold that the trial court committed reversible error in denying the defendant’s timely motion for mistrial after a police detective, called at trial as a witness for the state, testified over objection before the jury that the defendant had a “prior felony past.”
We are led to the above result for the following reasons.
First, the above testimony was utterly inadmissible in evidence as its sole relevance was to attack the defendant’s character or to show the propensity of the defendant to commit crime. See e.g., Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959); Mann v. State, 22 Fla. 600 (1886); Selph v. State, 22 Fla. 537 (1886); Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 42, 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), and cases collected therein.
Second, the presentation before a jury of testimony inadmissible, as here, under the Williams rule has generally been considered classic grounds for a mistrial given its usual devastating impact upon a jury. Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177, 179-80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), approved in part, quashed in part, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1982).
Third, the trial court’s “cautionary” instruction to the jury in no way cured the prejudicial impact of such evidence as it did not explicitly or in substance instruct the jury (a) that the offending testimony was inadmissible in evidence and (b) that the jury should disregard it.
Fourth, the admission of the offending testimony was not rendered harmless as the state’s case was not, as urged, overwhelming in nature given especially the three alibi witnesses presented by the defense at trial. See also Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d at 179-80.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCALL v. State, 463 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Evans v. State, 422 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Mancebo v. State, 350 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert, denied, 359 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1978). See Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639 (Fla.1982). Cf. Harris v. State, 427 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (detective’s testimony that defendant had prior felony past inadmissible and not rendered harmless where state’s case not overwhelming, given testimony of alibi witnesses). A witness’s comment “may be erroneously admitted yet not…
-
Smart v. State, 596 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…were therefore inadmissible. See Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959); State v. Lee, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1988); Gonzalez v. State, 559 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Harris v. State, 427 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Second, under the facts of this case, the defense counsel’s failure to request a curative instruction was not fatal. The record demonstrates that at one point the defense counsel attempted to make a motion, but the trial court de…
-
Harris v. State, 447 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…of the prosecutor’s totally irrelevant and highly prejudicial cross-examination of the defendant and his girlfriend-witness to the effect that he was a procurer and she, his prostitute.1 Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975); Harris v. State, 427 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Malcolm v. State, 415 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Glantz v. State, 343 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In the light of the relative closeness of the self-defense claim asserted by the defendant, we cannot find that this clear er…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)
- Mann v. State, 22 Fla. 600 (Fla. 1886)
- Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Selph v. State, 22 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1886)
- Jester v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)