EDWARD LAMAR PATTERSON, 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 a defendant has an absolute right to cross-examine a prosecution witness about pending criminal charges, even if unrelated to the current case.
Appellant was convicted of kidnapping, battery, and trespass. The trial court granted the state's motion in limine to prevent cross-examination of a k…
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 Witness Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced for kidnapping without a firearm, battery, and trespass in a structure without a firearm. Appellant argues that the court erred in granting the state’s motion in li-mine to limit appellant’s cross-examination of a state witness, Larry Cox, as to current criminal charges pending against Cox. We agree.
The general rule of law is that evidence of pending charges against a witness is inadmissible for impeachment purposes unless the charges arise out of the same incident. Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla.1976). The rule, however, does not apply in criminal cases when a prosecution witness is under criminal charges. The defendant then has an absolute right to bring those charges out in cross-examination, even when they relate to a different offense. Morrell v. State, 297 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Lee v. State, 318 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Cox was the state’s key witness, and the kidnapping and battery charges rested on his credibility. The fact that there were criminal charges pending against Cox tends to show that he had a reason to testify in favor of the state. The court erred in prohibiting appellant’s cross-examination of Cox. However, the error was harmless with respect to the trespass charge because Cox’s testimony concerning that charge was cumulative.
We reverse the convictions of kidnapping and battery and remand for a new trial. We affirm the judgment and sentence for trespass in a structure without a firearm.
SCHEB and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herve Jean-Mary v. State, 678 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…74)); Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403, 408 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 901, 109 S.Ct. 250,102 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280, 283-84 (Fla.1976); Cortes v. State, 670 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Patterson v. State, 501 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Causey v. State, 484 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), quashed on other grounds, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1987). This rule applies even to the instant situation where the charges against the state’s witness have been recently dis…
-
Simmons v. State, 552 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…with intent to sell cocaine). Simmons had an absolute right to expose any prior convictions1 or pending charges against Means for the purposes of impeaching Means’ credibility and/or demonstrating his bias in favor of the state. Patterson v. State, 501 So. 2d 691, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The convictions for sale of cocaine are affirmed, and the conviction for possession with intent to sell is reversed and the case remanded for new trial. ZEHMER, J., concurs. NIMMONS, J., concurs and dissents with written…
-
Dingle v. State, 699 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…error rule where as here, the subject witness was not the key witness to the state’s case and the witness’ testimony regarding the health of the victim on the day in question was merely cumulative to other testimony adduced. See Patterson v. State, 501 So. 2d 691, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); but see Cortes, 670 [*835] So. 2d at 121 (it was clear error to prohibit cross-examination of a key prosecution witness regarding pending charges); Douglas v. State, 627 So. 2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (error not harml…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1976)
- Morrell v. State, 297 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- LEE v. State, 318 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)