DAVID LEE HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudicial Cross-Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the appellant’s second degree murder conviction for a new trial because 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 error was harmless. Wright v. State, 446 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and cases cited; compare State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984).
Reversed.
. In addition, the state attorney did not proffer evidence sufficient even to show that there was any truth to these allegations. See Smith v. State, 414 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and cases cited.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 572 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…stion that the appellant was hired to “get rid of” the alleged victim was highly prejudicial and completely irrelevant to the crimes charged or the evidence presented. See, e.g., Shorter v. State, 532 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Harris v. State, 447 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Malcolm v. State, 415 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Glantz v. State, 343 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We find this error to be so inflammatory that it destroyed the appellant’s right to a fair trial. The State argues that the…
-
Williams v. State, 544 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ently waived his Miranda rights. State v. Isaac, 465 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). While the state’s single reference during closing argument to the tears of the victim’s parents was an improper appeal to the sympathy of the jury, Macias v. State, 447 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the isolated comment does not rise to the level of reversible error. See Erwin v. State, 532 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1989). Affirmed.…
-
Castillo v. State, 466 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…nd sentence.1 We find error also in the state’s cross-examination of the defendant’s mother-in-law which attempted to portray her as involved in a plot to bribe a witness where there was no evidence to support the suggestion. See Harris v. State, 447 So. 2d 1020, 1020 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Smith v. State, 414 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The issue raised in appellant’s fourth point on appeal — that the enhanced and mandatory sentence was not supported by the evidence — is not likely to reoccur a…
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
- State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1984)
- Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1975)
- Anderson Beck v. State, 415 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Wright v. State, 446 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Smith v. State, 414 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Harris v. State, 427 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Glantz v. State, 343 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)