PAUL ALBERT GAREY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Impeachment Of Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
[*797] PER CURIAM.
The sole issue meriting discussion is the defendant’s contention that the trial court erroneously prevented the cross examination of a key witness concerning pending criminal charges. We reverse.
Several Florida decisions have held that a state’s witness may be cross examined on the basis of other pending criminal charges. Cowheard v. State, 365 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied 374 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1979); Blanco v. State, 353 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Stripling v. State, 349 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Lee v. State, 318 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Defense counsel here requested to make an inquiry with regard to pending charges against a key witness. Such impeachment is permitted to demonstrate the witness’s bias or motive. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
LETTS, C.J., and DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Livingston v. State, 678 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…). A well recognized area of cross examination is how pending criminal charges may have influenced a witness’ cooperation with the state and the content of in-court statements. Blanco v. State, 353 So. 2d 602, 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Garey v. State, 432 So. 2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). To explore even more subtle motivations, where a witness has already been sentenced, a defendant may cross examine concerning any continuing relationship between the witness and the state. For example, in Watts v. State, 45…
-
Watts v. State, 450 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…o testify so as to please the authorities who have some discretion over his probationary status, is permissible for the purpose of demonstrating the witness’s bias or motive for testifying for any reason other than to tell the truth. Garey v. State, 432 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Hannah; Moreno v. State, 418 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Daniels v. State, 374 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Cowheard v. State, 365 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1979). Denial of effectiv…
-
Henry v. State, 123 So. 3d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ognized area of cross examination is how pending criminal charges may have influenced a witness’ cooperation with the state and the content of in-court statements.” Id. (citing Blanco v. State, 353 So. 2d 602, 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Garey v. State, 432 So. 2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). “Defendants have the right to introduce evidence of the conditions of a plea bargain entered into between the State and one of its witnesses so that the jury may properly pass upon the credibility of the witness.” Engram v…
Authorities Cited
- Stripling v. State, 349 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- LEE v. State, 318 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Cowheard v. State, 365 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Blanco v. State, 353 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)