CATHY MOHORN A/K/A CATHY JUSTICE, 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.
The court held that the imposition of court costs and costs for the Crimes Compensation Fund was improper without determining the defendant's ability to pay after notice, and that while the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony about a witness's prior convictions, this did not constitute reversible error.
The defendant was convicted of a crime. The prosecutor elicited testimony that a state witness had never been convicted of a crime and commented on th…
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 Imposition Of Court Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Judge.
Pursuant to Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984), we reverse the imposition of court costs and costs assessed against the defendant for the Crimes Compensation Fund. We remand for a determination of defendant’s ability to pay after adequate notice to defendant.
We further find it was error for the prosecutor to elicit testimony from the state witness on direct examination that he had never been convicted of a crime and to comment on that testimony in closing argument. The good character of a witness may not be supported unless it has been impeached by evidence. Whitted v. State, 362 So. 2d 668 (Fla.1978), citing 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1104 (Rev. ed. 1972). See also section 90.609(2), Florida Statutes (1983).
We cannot say, however, that this error constituted reversible error. The totality of the evidence against the defendant, including her admission of guilt, mutes the prejudicial effect of the improperly elicited testimony. See section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983); Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648, 653-54 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 369, 70 L.Ed.2d 195 (1981).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment but reverse the imposition of costs, remanding that issue to the trial court for a determination of defendant’s ability to pay.
HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scurry v. State, 490 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…a prior inconsistent statement. Without determining the substantive merits of this issue, we find that if there was any error it was harmless because of other sufficient evidence upon which the jury could return a verdict of guilt. Mohorn v. State, 462 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Appellant next challenges the court’s imposition of a $1,050.00 fine, the order that appellant make restitution to the worker’s compensation carrier of the employer of the victim, and the order to make a $15.00 payment to the C…
-
Darius R. Shipman v. State, 647 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…g’s credibility had not been placed at issue and therefore that his motive testimony should have been excluded as irrelevant. See e.g., Whitted, v. State, 362 So. 2d 668 (Fla.1978); Jacob v. State, 546 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Mohorn v. State, 462 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985): However, the appellee argues that the error was harmless. We cannot agree. First, the prosecutor emphasized in closing argument that it is “extremely significant that Mr. Strong has come in here, a citizen that has absolutely no…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Johnson v. Florida, 454 U.S. 882 (U.S. 1981)
- Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1981)
- Whitted v. State, 362 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1978)