HUGO CASTILLO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Hugo Castillo appealed his burglary conviction, challenging the trial court's error in preventing him from clarifying on redirect examination that he had only one prior felony conviction. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding the error harmless because it did not adversely affect Castillo's substantial rights.
The trial court erred in sustaining the prosecutor's objection to the redirect examination question, as a defendant is entitled to explain and limit testimony elicited on cross-examination. However, the error was harmless because it did not adversely affect Castillo's substantial rights, as defense counsel indirectly informed the jury during closing argument that Castillo had only one prior conviction.
[1] A party may reexamine a witness on any matter raised during cross-examination.
[2] On redirect examination, a witness may provide testimony that tends to qualify, limit, or explain testimony elicited on cross-examination.
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“On redirect examination a witness may provide testimony "which tends to qualify, limit or explain testimony elicited on cross-examination."”
Establishes the legal standard for what may be addressed on redirect examination and supports the court's finding that the trial judge should have allowed Castillo to clarify his prior convictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCastillo was tried for burglary. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Castillo about prior felony convictions, and Castillo responded affirmativ…
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 Redirect Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Castillo appeals from his conviction for burglary. We affirm his conviction because we find the claimed error to be harmless.
At trial, Castillo’s defense depended primarily on his credibility. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Castillo if he had any prior felony convictions. See § 90.610, Fla.Stat. (1983). Castillo responded affirmatively. Castillo had only one pri-or felony conviction but the prosecutor never elicited this fact on cross-examination. Instead, he left the jury with, as Castillo contends, a false impression that Castillo had previously been convicted of numerous crimes. On redirect examination, defense counsel attempted to dispel this false impression by asking Castillo how many prior convictions he had. Defense counsel’s effort was thwarted however when the court sustained the prosecutor’s objection to the question.
It is well established that a party may reexamine a witness on any matter raised during cross-examination. See Noeling v. State, 40 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1949). On redirect examination a witness may provide testimony “which tends to qualify, limit or explain testimony elicited on cross-examination.” Hinton v. State, 347 So. 2d 1079, 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 981 (Fla.1977). Since the prosecutor challenged Castillo’s credibility by raising his prior conviction, the trial judge should have permitted Castillo to explain and limit the impact of the cross-examination by clarifying on redirect examination that he had only a single prior conviction.1
Although we recognize the trial court’s error, we affirm the conviction because the error did not adversely affect Castillo’s substantial rights. See § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1985); Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648, 653 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 369, 70 L.Ed.2d 195 (1981). After carefully considering all the relevant circumstances, including the weight and quality of the evidence, see Palmes, and the fact that Castillo’s counsel indirectly informed the jury during closing argument that Castillo had only one prior conviction, we are convinced that the error did not affect the result below. See Brantley v. State, 279 So. 2d 290 (Fla.1973); Warren v. State, 270 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1972).
Whether considered on its own or in conjunction with the first point on appeal, Castillo’s final point on appeal is without merit. See Wilkins v. State, 383 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Accordingly, the judgment on the conviction appealed is
Affirmed.
. Our decision is supported by those decisions recognizing that defendants may give unsolicited testimony on cross-examination explaining their prior convictions. See, e.g., McArthur v. Cook, 99 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1957).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forrest Benjamin Mott v. State, 632 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…6 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 164, 116 L.Ed.2d 128 (1991); Strapp v. State, 588 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); [*110] Bradford v. State, 567 So. 2d 911 (Fia. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 577 So. 2d 1325 (Fia.1991); Castillo v. State, 490 So. 2d 1066 (Fia. 3d DCA 1986).…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Florida, 454 U.S. 882 (U.S. 1981)
- Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1981)
- McARTHUR v. Cook, 99 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1957)
- Hinton v. State, 347 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Warren v. State, 270 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1972)
- Brantley v. State, 279 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1973)
- Wilkins v. State, 383 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)