J.P., A JUVENILE, 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.
J.P., a juvenile, appealed a delinquency adjudication for trespassing on school property after the trial court admitted evidence of a prior attack on a teacher. The appellate court reversed, holding that the evidence was inadmissible character evidence that was highly prejudicial to the juvenile.
The court held that (a) the evidence was inadmissible because its sole relevance was to attack the respondent's character in violation of Florida Evidence Code § 90.404(2)(a), and (b) the admission of this evidence was not harmless error but was extremely prejudicial to the respondent.
[1] Evidence of a prior attack by a respondent on a teacher is inadmissible character evidence in a subsequent delinquency proceeding for trespassing.
[2] The admission of evidence solely relevant to attacking a respondent's character is reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the sole relevance of this testimony was to attack the character of the respondent, thus making such testimony inadmissible in evidence”
Establishes the core holding that character evidence is inadmissible when its only relevance is propensity
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.P. was charged with trespassing on school property after warning. At trial, the court admitted evidence that J.P. had attacked a school teacher in a…
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 Prejudicial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the respondent J.P. from a final order after a non-jury trial, which order withheld a juvenile delinquency adjudication and imposed a term of community control for the offense of trespassing on school property after warning.
We reverse the final order under review and remand the cause for new trial upon a holding that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence at trial that the respondent had attacked a school teacher in a prior incident.
We conclude that (a) the sole relevance of this testimony was to attack the character of the respondent, thus making such testimony inadmissible in evidence, Coler v. State, 418 So. 2d 238, 239 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1127, 103 S.Ct. 763, 74 L.Ed.2d 978 (1983); accord Jackson v. State, 451 So. 2d 458,461 (Fla.1984); Drake v. State, 400 So. 2d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 1981); Periu v. State, 490 So. 2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Diaz v. State, 467 So. 2d 1061, 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Malcolm v. State, 415 So. 2d 891, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Paul v. State, 340 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 953 (Fla.1977); Drayton v. State, 292 So. 2d 395, 396 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 300 So. 2d 900 (Fla.1974); § 90.404(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987), and (b) the admission of this devastating testimony cannot be said to be harmless, and was, to the contrary, extremely prejudicial to the respondent. Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903, 908 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 556, 70 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981); accord Keen v. State, 504 So. 2d 396, 401 (Fla.1987); Peek v. State, 488 So. 2d 52, 56 (Fla.1986); Bricker v. State, 462 So. 2d 556, 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Rolle v. State, 431 So. 2d 326, 327-28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Harris v. State, 427 So. 2d 234, 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Wilt v. State, 410 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177, 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), approved in part, quashed in part, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1982).
We have not overlooked the state’s valiant arguments to the contrary, but are not persuaded thereby.
Because of the result we reach in this case, it is unnecessary to reach the respondent’s second point on appeal. The final order under review is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooks v. State, 868 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…to attack the character of the defendant.” Cornatezer v. State, 736 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); see also Dawkins v. State, 605 So. 2d 1329, 1330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Garvey v. State, 754 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA [*645] 2000); J.P. v. State, 546 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Finklea v. State, 471 So. 2d 596, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Thus the question presented to us is whether Rosa’s nonresponsive remark — considered in the light of the trial court’s cautionary instruction to the jury — can be deemed…
Authorities Cited (23 total)
- Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981)
- Drake v. State, 400 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1981)
- Tucker v. Zant, 454 U.S. 1022 (U.S. 1981)
- State v. Vazquez, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1982)
- Peek v. State, 488 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1986)
- Jackson v. State, 451 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1984)
- Keen v. State, 504 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1987)
- Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 459 U.S. 1127 (U.S. 1983)
- Coler v. State, 418 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1982)
- Anderson Beck v. State, 415 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)