JUDITH MARIE HEPLER, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed grand theft conviction because trial court improperly admitted character evidence of prior employment misrepresentations in violation of Florida's character evidence rule.
Evidence of an appellant's prior misrepresentations on employment applications is inadmissible character evidence under Florida Statutes section 90.404(1) when used to show the defendant is a liar and therefore likely committed the charged theft.
[1] Evidence of a defendant's prior misrepresentations on employment applications is inadmissible character evidence when offered to show the defendant's propensity to lie an…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Clearly, however, the focus of the evidence was on appellant's character: that she was a liar and therefore was the most likely perpetrator of the thefts.”
Court's analysis of why the employment misrepresentation evidence was improper character evidence
Judith Hepler was convicted of grand theft. The state introduced evidence that she had made misrepresentations on employment applications submitted 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 Propensity Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
Judith M. Hepler appeals from a conviction of grand theft. We reverse.
Error occurred during trial in permitting witnesses to make reference to having taken a polygraph test, Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1952), by a witness’s reference to an additional unsolved disappearance of cash from appellant’s place of employment and in permitting the state to commit various improprieties during closing argument. We do not reach the question of whether these errors singly or collectively could be considered harmless because of another error that requires reversal in any event.
The state introduced into evidence the fact that appellant had made misrepresentations on applications for employment which she had submitted to four banks. The purpose of this testimony was ostensibly to show a premeditated scheme to seek employment and then to steal from her employer. Clearly, however, the focus of the evidence was on appellant’s character: that she was a liar and therefore was the most likely perpetrator of the thefts. Such evidence is rendered inadmissible by section 90.404(1), Florida Statutes (1985), the limited exceptions being inapplicable to this case. Our impression that the appellant’s character was the principal target of the evidence in question is buttressed by references to it in the state’s closing argument. Finding error, we reverse and remand for a new trial or for other appropriate proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.