JEFFREY SANDERS, 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.
Jeffrey Sanders was convicted of attempted escape from prison while serving a prior sentence. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court improperly admitted the Information from Sanders' prior conviction into evidence, which was highly prejudicial and unnecessary to prove the required element of lawful custody.
The admission of the Information was error requiring reversal. Although the state argued the Information was necessary to prove lawful custody, testimony establishing that Sanders was confined in prison creates a presumption of lawful custody under State v. Williams that cannot be rebutted without contrary evidence. The Information was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, and therefore should not have been admitted.
[1] Evidence that a person is confined in prison raises a presumption of lawful custody for the purposes of an escape charge.
[2] The introduction of prior convictions is inadmissible when those convictions are not relevant to the elements of the charged offense and are highly prejudicial.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Evidence that one is confined in prison raises a presumption of lawful custody.”
The court established the legal standard that proof of confinement alone creates a presumption of lawful custody, making introduction of prior conviction details unnecessary.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanders, while incarcerated on a previous conviction, was observed conducting certain activity at a window of the prison. He was tried and convicted o…
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 Duty Of Prosecutor cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
Jeffrey Sanders, while incarcerated on a previous conviction, was observed conducting certain activity at a window of the prison. As a result, he was tried and convicted of the charge of attempted escape. He appeals his conviction on two grounds, the first of which requires reversal.
The trial court permitted the jury to consider the Information underlying appellant’s earlier conviction and to take it to the jury room. Appellant alleges error in that the Information recited serious crimes, knowledge of which prejudiced the jury. The state responds that introduction of the Information was necessary to prove that appellant was in lawful custody, a necessary element to the current charge of escape from lawful confinement.
The statute under which appellant was charged, section 944.40, Florida Statutes (1985), provides:
Any prisoner confined in any prison, jail, road camp, or other penal institution, state, county, or municipal, working upon the public roads, or being transported to or from a place of confinement who escapes or attempts to escape from such confinement shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The punishment of imprisonment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed upon any prisoner. Testimony of state witnesses established that appellant was confined in prison. Evidence that one is confined in prison raises a presumption of lawful custody. State v. Williams, 444 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1984). No evidence having been proffered to rebut the presumption, there was no necessity to introduce the Information into evidence.
We agree with the appellant’s position and reverse. The convictions for which appellant was serving time in prison were serious offenses and were not relevant to the issue of attempted escape. Introduction of the Information was highly prejudicial.
Our failure to treat appellant’s additional argument for reversal should not be taken as tacit approval of some of the remarks made by the state in closing argument. We simply observe that it is unnecessary to examine additional points because of our determination that use of the Information on the facts of this case requires that we reverse and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WALDEN, J., concurs.
WEBSTER, PETER D., Associate Judge, concurs with opinion.
WEBSTER, PETER D., Associate Judge,
concurring.
I agree that appellant’s conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial for the reason stated. However, I find myself compelled to comment on the prosecutor’s actions at trial.
A prosecuting attorney is a public officer possessing considerable power. He or she is also, however, an officer of the court. As such, his or her principal responsibility is not to procure convictions; rather, it is to insure that justice is done, regardless of the outcome in any particular case. Newton v. State, 178 So. 2d 341 (FIa.2d DCA 1965). In this sense, a prosecuting attorney is the holder of a great public trust. He or she is charged with defending and preserving the constitutions of this State and of the United States, including that portion of each which affords to one accused of crime the right to due process of law — that the game will be played according to the rules, so to speak.
In my opinion, the prosecutor in this case repeatedly — and deliberately — ignored her obligation to the public and to our system of justice. She was concerned only with obtaining a conviction, and was prepared to use any means to achieve that end. The result was that the game was not played according to the rules; justice was not done; and the defendant’s right to a fair trial was denied. There is no place in our system of justice for such attitudes, and they should not be tolerated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sigler v. State, 805 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ce of the length of appellant’s sentence. Permitting introduction of evidence of the nature of the offense for which appellant was then in lawful custody is generally held to be error. See Brown v. State, 719 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1998); Sanders v. State, 517 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). However, reversal is not required where there is no reasonable possibility that the error harmfully contributed to the verdict. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat.; Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1999); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So…
-
Cannon v. State, 529 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…is information, as the probative value of the information, if any, was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect on the jury. See Parker v. State, 408 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1982); Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1986); Sanders v. State, 517 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). We nonetheless affirm appellant’s conviction, finding the error to be harmless in this case in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented at trial. AFFIRMED. SHIVERS, THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Williams, 444 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1984)
- Newton v. State, 178 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)