KENNETH DALE PALMER, 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.
Kenneth Dale Palmer was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction because the trial court improperly admitted prejudicial evidence of Palmer's status as a prison inmate on furlough, which substantially outweighed its probative value under Florida's evidence rules.
The court held that the work release records were inadmissible under Florida Statutes Section 90.403 because their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice from revealing appellant's status as a convicted prisoner. The court found that appellant's presence in Live Oak could have been established through other nonprejudicial means.
[1] Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
[2] Evidence of a defendant's incarceration status on the day of an offense is inadmissible if its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.
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“Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....”
Establishes the legal standard under Florida Statutes Section 90.403 that governs admissibility of the work release records.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePalmer was charged with burglary of a dwelling and grand theft allegedly committed on January 1, 1988. At trial, the state introduced records from the…
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 Relevant Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant appeals his conviction for violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1987), burglary of a dwelling, and Section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1987), grand theft, both allegedly committed on January 1, 1988. Appellant raises five points on appeal, one of which merits discussion and requires reversal.
On the morning of trial, appellant made a motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding appellant’s incarceration on the day of the offense. Specifically, appellant requested that the state not be allowed to introduce records of the Jacksonville Work Release Center, which showed that appellant had signed out of the center on furlough on the day of the incident and indicated that his destination was Live Oak, where the incident occurred. The court denied the motion, and the records were introduced into evidence, along with the testimony of the custodian of the records.
Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987), provides: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....” In this case, any probative value of appellant’s furlough records was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of presenting to the jury the fact that appellant was a convicted prisoner on furlough. Furthermore, appellant’s presence in Live Oak on the day of the crime could have been established by other nonprejudicial means.
Although the state argues that it was not appellant’s status as an inmate that was significant, but rather his confinement to a certain place (prison), which necessitated the involvement of other people (his wife and her friend) in the concealment of the weapon (buried near the prison) after he stole it while on furlough; nevertheless, its prejudicial effect was too great. Furthermore, because the prejudicial evidence was introduced during the state’s case-in-chief, it was not cumulative. We cannot say that there is no reasonable possibility that the admission of this testimony contributed to defendant’s conviction. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986).
Therefore, defendant’s conviction is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for a new trial.
ZEHMER, J., concurs.
WENTWORTH, J., dissents without written opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cantero v. State, 612 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…t, stated that he saw the appellant in jail on January 3. The prosecutor’s cross-examination of the appellant concerning his court appearance lacked probative value and was so prejudicial as to deny the appellant a fair trial. See Palmer v. State, 548 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Evidence of an unrelated crime was irrelevant to the instant offense and served only to taint the appellant’s character in the eyes of the jury. See Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)