MICHAEL ANDERSON, 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.
Michael Anderson appealed his conviction for armed burglary and sexual battery of a thirteen-year-old boy. The appellate court affirmed his conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in denying his motion to withdraw counsel and finding any evidentiary error harmless in light of substantial physical evidence.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the eleventh-hour motion to withdraw based on speculation about the victim's testimony, particularly when counsel had previously deposed the victim. While the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding the victim's behavioral changes following the assault, the error was harmless in light of the substantial physical evidence of guilt.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for defense counsel to withdraw on the eve of trial when the motion is based on speculation regarding the…
[2] Testimony concerning changes in a victim's behavior pattern following a sexual assault is generally inadmissible as it does not affect the guilt or innocence of the accus…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied counsel's eleventh hour motion to withdraw based on a mere speculation as to the nature of the victim's testimony.”
Establishes the standard for denying a motion to withdraw based on counsel's inability to testify.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA thirteen-year-old boy awoke to find an armed man in his bedroom who sexually assaulted him. Due to darkness, the victim could not clearly identify t…
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 Motion To Withdraw As Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Anderson appeals from his con-' viction of armed burglary and sexual battery.
The victim, a thirteen year old boy, awoke to find a man armed with a pocket knife in his bedroom. The man assaulted him sexually. Because of the darkness, the victim did not have a clear view of the assailant and knew only that he was black. At the lineup the victim could not identify any suspect. The police lifted two fingerprints from the windowsill of the victim’s home which matched appellant’s fingerprints and also discovered semen and pubic hairs consistent with samples taken from appellant.
On the opening day of trial, defense counsel moved to withdraw on the ground that it might become necessary for him to testify that the victim said during the lineup, “He’s not there.” The trial court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw. After the victim testified, the defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The court denied this motion as well.
Appellant raises two points on appeal. First, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw and in denying his subsequent motion for a mistrial. Second, he contends the trial court should have excluded testimony concerning changes in the victim’s behavior pattern following the attack.
We find no merit in appellant’s first point. Appellant deposed the victim prior to trial and could have made a timely motion to withdraw, had he established that the victim’s recollection differed from the statements made at the lineup. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied counsel’s eleventh hour motion to withdraw based on a mere speculation as to the nature of the victim’s testimony.
We agree with appellant’s contention that the trial court should have excluded the testimony related to the changes in the victim’s behavior pattern following the assault. See Bynum v. State, 76 Fla. 618, 622, 80 So. 572, 573 (1918).
The essential elements to be proven were the sexual intercourse, the age of the woman, her unmarried state, and previous chaste character. What happened after the criminal act in no wise affected either the guilt or innocence of the accused. Her giving birth to a dead child, her sufferings, the impairment of her health, were not material to the issues involved.
However, we do not conclude the admission of this testimony in the case sub judice requires a new trial. Our review of the record satisfies us that the testimony had no real prejudicial effect. In view of the substantial evidence establishing appellant’s guilt, we hold that the admission of this testimony constituted harmless error. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kearse v. State, 605 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…t. 185, 102 L.Ed.2d 154 (1988). In deciding whether a trial court conducted an appropriate Nelson inquiry, appellate courts apply the review standard of abuse of discretion. Kott v. State, 518 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Anderson v. State, 439 So. 2d 961, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We have held that a trial court’s discretion is abused if the court fails to provide the defendant with the opportunity to explain why he or she objects to counsel or fails to conduct the above inquiries. See Parker v. Stat…
-
Weaver v. State, 894 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2004)…te, 645 So. 2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (stating that denial of appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw will not be disturbed absent clear abuse of discretion); Sanborn v. State, 474 So. 2d 309, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same); Anderson v. State, 439 So. 2d 961, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (same). A trial court’s discretion to discharge counsel without a request from either counsel or from either party is, however, narrower than the court’s “broad discretion to determine whether a motion to withdraw should be…
-
Soto v. State, 751 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…econd issue, Soto complains that the trial court erred in denying his repeated requests to discharge his counsel. A trial court’s ruling denying a motion to discharge counsel will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. See Anderson v. State, 439 So. 2d 961, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). [W]here a defendant, before the commencement of trial, makes it appear to the trial judge that he desires to discharge his court appointed counsel, the trial judge, in order to protect the indigent’s right to effective cou…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bynum v. State, 76 Fla. 618 (Fla. 1918)