PATRICIA WOLACK, 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.
Patricia Wolack appeals her conviction and sentence in a Florida criminal case. The appellate court affirmed her conviction, rejecting claims regarding improper exclusion of witness reputation testimony, denial of a jury instruction on mere presence at the crime scene, and allegedly improper prosecutorial comments.
The trial court did not err in excluding the officer's reputation testimony as the foundation was insufficient; any such error was harmless given another officer's extensive testimony; the trial court properly covered the substance of a mere presence instruction through its principals of law instruction; and the prosecutor's comment about the missing person's report did not violate the appellant's right to remain silent.
[1] Reputation testimony regarding a witness's truth and veracity is inadmissible when the witness's reputation was gained solely through the witness's official position.
[2] Potential evidentiary error is rendered harmless when other admissible evidence substantially covers the same ground.
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 officer's knowledge of the witness's reputation was gained solely through the officer's official position. We do not believe the trial court erred in ruling this to be an insufficient basis upon which to predicate reputation testimony.”
Establishes that reputation testimony requires a proper foundation beyond official capacity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA West Virginia police officer sought to testify regarding the reputation for truth and veracity of a state's witness, with knowledge gained solely 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 Constitutional Right To Remain Silent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence. In doing so we reject appellant’s claims of error in the trial court’s disallowance of the testimony of a West Virginia police officer as to the reputation for truth and veracity of a state’s witness. It appears that the officer’s knowledge of the witness’s reputation was gained solely through the officer’s official position. We do not believe the trial court erred in ruling this to be an insufficient basis upon which to predicate reputation testimony. See Stripling v. State, 349 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
In addition, we believe any potential error to be harmless in view of the fact that another West Virginia police officer, who had known the state’s witness prior to becoming a police officer, testified extensively as to his negative opinion of the witness’s truth and veracity and acknowledged that other police officers shared this opinion. We also reject appellant’s claim of error in the trial court’s refusal to give an instruction to the jury that mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to prove guilt. In our view the import of such an instruction was well covered by the trial court’s instruction on principals which clearly would not permit a finding of guilt predicated on a mere showing of presence at the scene. We have also considered the issue raised by appellant in her supplemental brief and we hold that the prosecutor’s comment in opening statement about the absence of a missing person’s report did not constitute an improper comment on the appellant’s constitutional right to remain silent. Cf. Nelson v. State, 416 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
ANSTEAD, C.J., DELL, J., and GEIGER, DWIGHT L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…nson v. State, 484 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Refusal to give the instruction is not error, however, when the proposed instructions add nothing to the standard instructions. Walker v. State, 428 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Wolack v. State, 464 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition for review denied, 476 So. 2d 676 (Fla.1985). In this case, the jury was presented with two versions of Williams’s role in the burglary. The jury heard the defense version through the testimony of the two young men who acti…
-
Peters v. State, 33 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…previously stated when “faced with a defense request to give a ‘mere presence’ instruction ... that the matter was “well covered’ by the instruction on principals.” Parker v. State, 795 So. 2d 1096, 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Wolack v. State, 464 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)). In McGuire v. State, 639 So. 2d 1043, 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA [*815] 1994), the defendant requested a special instruction in a first degree murder trial that stated that mere presence at the scene of a crime does not mean that…
-
Zamora v. State, 580 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Wolack v. State, 464 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 476 So. 2d 676 (Fla.1985).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stripling v. State, 349 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Nelson v. State, 416 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)