RONALD CRAIG ASHCRAFT, 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.
Ronald Ashcraft appeals his convictions for armed burglary, sexual battery, burglary of a conveyance, and second degree grand theft on two grounds: denial of his right to self-representation and admission of impeachment evidence regarding prior convictions. The appellate court affirms all convictions, finding no reversible error on either issue.
The trial court did not err in denying self-representation where the judge had sufficient basis, including the nature of the evidence (expert testimony on fingerprints, serology, and hair comparisons) and observations of defendant at prior hearings, to conclude that allowing self-representation would jeopardize a fair trial. The trial court did not err in permitting impeachment questioning about the prior rape conviction because defendant opened the door by testifying that he had never hurt anyone, thereby misleading the jury about his prior crimes.
[1] A defendant's right to self-representation is not absolute and may be denied if it would jeopardize a fair trial.
[2] A trial court may deny a defendant's request for self-representation based on the nature of the evidence, inquiries to the defendant, and observations of the defendant at…
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“Self representation is not an absolute right and need not be allowed when it would jeopardize a fair trial on the issues.”
Establishes the standard for denying a defendant's request for self-representation; it is not absolute and may be denied if it risks an unfair trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAshcraft was convicted of armed burglary, sexual battery, burglary of a conveyance, and second degree grand theft. At trial, he requested the right to…
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 Impeachment By Prior Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals from convictions for armed burglary, sexual battery, burglary of a conveyance, and second degree grand theft. He raises two points on appeal. We affirm.
As to his first point, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him his right to self-representation. We do not agree. While the trial judge’s attention to detail in conducting the type of inquiry called for by Williams v. State, 427 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), was not as great as it could have been, we cannot say that the judge did not have sufficient basis to deny defendant’s request to represent himself. “Self representation is not an absolute right and need not be allowed when it would jeopardize a fair trial on the issues.” Williams, 427 So. 2d at 770-71. The judge determined on the basis of the nature of the evidence to be adduced at trial, his inquiries to defendant, and his observations of defendant at prior hearings that defendant would not get a “decent” trial if he represented himself. We equate “decent” with fair, especially in view of the trial court’s contemplation of the technical aspects to be involved at the trial, such as expert testimony involving fingerprints, serology, and hair comparisons.
As his second point, defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach defendant by inquiring into the nature of his prior convictions. We do not agree. Defendant erroneously testified to a lesser number of prior convictions than were shown by his record. The prosecutor was not thereby entitled to elicit details of the prior crimes.
If the witness denies ever having been convicted, or misstates the number of previous convictions, counsel may impeach the witness by producing a record of past convictions. Even if a witness denies a prior conviction, the specific offense is identified only incidentally when the record of the conviction is entered into evidence.
Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280, 284 (Fla.1976). Nonetheless, the state, citing McCrae v. State, 395 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1041, 102 S.Ct. 583, 70 L.Ed.2d 486 (1981), argues that defendant’s record showed a prior conviction for rape and that the defendant opened the door to questioning about details of that prior conviction by testifying that he had never hurt anyone. We agree. In his testimony on direct examination defendant undertook to relate to the jury what occurred on the date of the crimes for which he was on trial but digressed and referred to prior crimes. In doing so defendant misled the jury by saying that he had never hurt anyone during those prior crimes. After that testimony the trial court initially ruled that the defendant had not thereby opened the door to questioning concerning the nature and details of prior crimes; however, during cross-examination the trial court changed his mind and permitted the questions regarding his rape conviction two weeks earlier. We cannot say this was error. See McCrae.
Finding no other reversible error, we affirm.
OTT, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bozeman v. State, 698 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ensity and asserted that he had never hit any woman; the first district held that such testimony opened the door to rebuttal evidence that the defendant had hit his first wife and a former girlfriend. Allred, 642 So. 2d at 651. In Ashcraft v. State, 465 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the defendant opened the door to evidence about a prior rape conviction by testifying that he “had never hurt anyone.” Id. at 1375. The Fletcher defendant’s testimony that he had “never pointed a gun at anybody” and that he was a…
-
Mosley v. State, 739 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ensity and asserted that he had never hit any woman; the first district held that such testimony opened the door to rebuttal evidence that the defendant had hit his first wife and a former girlfriend. Allred, 642 So. 2d at 651. In Ashcraft v. State, 465 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the defendant opened the door to evidence about a prior rape conviction by testifying that he “had never hurt anyone.” Id. at 1375. The Fletcher defendant’s testimony that he had “never pointed a gun at anybody” and that he was a…
-
Hernandez v. State, 569 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…and of the “shooting up” statements. When the appellant testified that he had never done any drug deals in his life, he opened the door to questioning about a heroin deal he had arranged two days prior to the instant offenses. See Ashcraft v. State, 465 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (by testifying that he had never hurt anyone, the defendant opened the door to questioning about a prior rape conviction). With respect to those statements the appellant made in front of the detectives about “shooting up,” the tr…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCRAE v. State, 395 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1980)
- Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1976)
- McCray v. Florida, 454 U.S. 1041 (U.S. 1981)
- Williams v. State, 427 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)