PEDRO ALVARADO, 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.
Pedro Alvarado appeals his convictions for first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, shooting into an occupied dwelling, and possession of a firearm during commission of a crime. The court affirms all convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in any of the five points raised on appeal.
The court affirmed all convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error on any of the five points raised. The motion in limine was properly granted because opinion evidence on witness credibility is inadmissible, though the defendant could establish a witness's bad reputation for truthfulness. The excusable homicide instruction presented no reversible error because the defendant failed to object at trial and no fundamental error was shown. Any error in limiting cross-examination about payments was harmless, and the sufficiency of evidence and third-party culpability limitations had no merit.
[1] Opinion evidence concerning a witness's belief in the truthfulness or criminality of another witness is inadmissible.
[2] A defendant may establish that a state witness's reputation for truthfulness in the community is bad, even if opinion evidence of truthfulness is precluded.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“such opinion evidence was clearly inadmissible, General Tel. Co. v. Wallace, 417 So.2d 1022, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)”
Establishes that witness opinion evidence regarding credibility or criminality is per se inadmissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlvarado was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, shooting into an occupied dwelling, and possession of a firearm during the com…
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 Shooting Into An Occupied Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pedro Alvarado appeals his judgments of conviction and sentences for first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, shooting into an occupied dwelling, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a criminal offense. He raises five points on appeal which, in our view, fail to present reversible error. We accordingly affirm.
First, the defendant claims that the trial court committed reversible error in granting a motion in limine filed by the state which precluded him from eliciting “any and all reference to the opinion of any witness concerning his/her belief as to the truthfulness or criminality of another witness.” We see no reversible error because (a) such opinion evidence was clearly inadmissible, General Tel. Co. v. Wallace, 417 So. 2d 1022, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); see Florida East Coast Ry. v. Hunt, 322 So. 2d 68, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 600 (Fla.1976), and (b) the trial court properly allowed the defendant to establish that a state witness’ reputation for truthfulness in the community was bad. See Antone v. State, 382 So. 2d 1205, 1213 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 287, 66 L.Ed.2d 141 (1980); Stanley v. State, 93 Fla. 372, 112 So. 73, 74 (1927); Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244, 13 So. 361, 362 (1893).
Second, the defendant claims that the trial court committed reversible error in giving a jury instruction on excusable homicide. We cannot agree because (a) the defendant did not object to this instruction at trial, and (b) no fundamental error is presented. See Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978); Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542, 543-44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1149, 103 S.Ct. 793, 74 L.Ed.2d 998 (1983); Suarez v. State, 478 So. 2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Third, the defendant claims that the trial court committed reversible error in precluding defense cross-examination of state witnesses concerning “payments for testimony or possibility of rewards.” We have reviewed the three rulings complained of and have concluded that the error, if any, in these rulings was entirely harmless. See Medina v. State, 466 So. 2d 1046, 1049-50 (Fla.1985); Hernandez v. State, 360 So. 2d 39, 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1979); cf. Butler v. State, 94 Fla. 163, 167, 113 So. 699, 701 (1927).
The fourth and fifth points on appeal attack the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and complain about a limitation on the defense attempts to establish third-party culpability. There is no merit to either point. See Ho Yin Wong v. State, 359 So. 2d 460, 462-63 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 886 (Fla.1978); Mercer v. State, 347 So. 2d 733, 734-35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The final judgments of conviction and sentences under review are, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyon Dale Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…to admit testimony of police officers and teacher that sexual abuse victim was truthful. “A witness invades the jury’s exclusive province when that witness gives his or her personal views of the credibility of another witness.”); Alvarado v. State, 521 So. 2d 180, 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (holding that an opinion of a witness concerning his or her belief as to the truthfulness of another witness “was clearly inadmissible.”); Morrison v. State, 818 So. 2d 432, 451 (Fla.2002) (holding that it was improper to all…
-
Wyatt v. State, 578 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…acter evidence to reputation or specific instances of conduct. Wrobel v. State, 410 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1982). This statute does not permit evidence of character to be made by opinion. See Alvarado v. State, 521 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In the instant case, the defendant sought to introduce evidence of his character through the expert opinion of a psychologist, which is not permitted by the statute. Cf. State v. Sinnott, 24 N.J. 408, 132 A. 2d 298 (1957) (court…
-
Moton v. State, 697 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…*1272] 1995), approving a curative instruction for an improper comment on credibility. In this case in which the issue of credibility of the state witness LaFrance is crucial, we cannot say that the judge’s error is harmless. See Alvarado v. State, 521 So. 2d 180, 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new (third) trial. DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
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 (17 total)
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Medina v. State, 466 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1985)
- Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Antone v. State, 382 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1980)
- Stanley v. State, 93 Fla. 372 (Fla. 1927)
- Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244 (Fla. 1893)
- Finney v. Balkcom, 449 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1980)
- Darrigo v. State Comm'n on Jud. Conduct, 449 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1980)
- HO YIN Wong v. State, 359 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Butler v. State, 94 Fla. 163 (Fla. 1927)