MICHAEL F. O'REILLY, 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.
Conviction reversed because trial court improperly excluded defense evidence of bias against the state's principal witness, violating the defendant's right to impeach credibility.
A trial court commits reversible error by preventing defense counsel from eliciting testimony establishing bias and impeaching the credibility of the state's principal witness.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by excluding evidence of witness bias offered to impeach the credibility of the state's principal witness when such evidence is cen…
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“refusal to allow presentation of testimony as to matters which are at the heart of the accused's defense is reversible error”
Court explaining why exclusion of bias evidence was reversible error
Appellant was convicted of violating section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes. The trial court refused to permit defense counsel to question the victim's m…
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 Of Credibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Convicted of a violation of section 800.-04(1), Florida Statutes (1985), appellant challenges rulings of the trial court refusing to permit defense counsel to elicit certain testimony from the mother of the victim and precluding the defense from putting on the testimony of a defense witness.
The purpose of the questions which defense counsel was prevented from pursuing as well as the testimony of the witness which the court refused to allow defense counsel to call was to establish bias and thus to impeach the credibility of the state’s principal witness, the mother of the victim. Not only should defense counsel have been permitted to do so pursuant to section 90.608, Florida Statutes (1985), but refusal to allow presentation of testimony as to matters which are at the heart of the accused’s defense is reversible error. Godorov v. State, 365 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1979); Brown v. State, 362 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Atkinson v. State, 317 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1976). Finding that the decision of the jury may very well have been affected by the failure to allow them to hear testimony concerning the interest of the state’s witness, a new trial is required. Armstrong v. State, 399 So. 2d 953 (Fla.1981).
Other points raised by appellant are without merit.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
HERSEY, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sampson Armstrong v. State, 399 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1981)
- Atkinson v. State, 317 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Brown v. State, 362 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Godorov v. State, 365 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)