KENNETH MICHAEL HENRY, 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.
Affirmed conviction despite trial court's potential abuse of discretion in precluding cross-examination about defendant's statements during consent search, as any error was harmless where the statement was later testified to by defense and did not refute state's evidence.
Although a trial court may abuse its discretion by precluding cross-examination of a state's witness about defendant's statements made during a consent search, such error is harmless when the defendant later testifies to the same statements and the excluded testimony does not refute the state's evidence.
[1] A trial court may abuse its discretion by precluding cross-examination of a state's witness concerning self-serving statements made by the defendant, but such error is ha…
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 intelligenceDuring a consent search at the scene, the defendant made statements explaining how he acquired a suitcase containing cocaine. The officer testified on…
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 Self-Serving Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. We recognize that the trial court may have abused its discretion in precluding cross-examination of a state’s witness concerning statements made by the defendant. The statements were made in the conversation at the scene of a consent search. Although the officer/witness testified only to the physical conduct of the search and not to the contemporaneous conversation, the defense was entitled to ask about the statements even if self-serving. E.g., Coco v. State, 62 So. 2d 892 (Fla.1953); Eberhardt v. State, 550 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1990).
Nevertheless, here, such error was harmless. Cf. Coxwell v. State, 361 So. 2d 148 (Fla.1978). See also Ackerman v. State, 372 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Smith, J., concurring). The statement concerned the defendant explaining how he acquired a suitcase containing cocaine. This was subsequently testified to on defense. The defense also had the opportunity to recall the witness but elected not to do so. Nothing in the nature of the officer’s testimony made the court’s ruling unfair, nor did the excluded testimony refute, impeach or modify the state’s evidence.
WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur. WARNER, J., dissents with opinion.
WARNER, Judge,
dissenting.
I would reverse because defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Eberhardt v. State, 550 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Heathcoat v. State, 430 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), aff'd, 442 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1983). The fact that the court offered to the defendant the right to recall the witness on his case does not cure the constitutional error because the defendant cannot be compelled to forego his Sixth Amendment right and make a witness his own when he is entitled to cross a witness on subjects opened up on direct examination. See Coco v. State, 62 So. 2d 892 (Fla.1953).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cotton v. State, 763 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…mpulsive rather that the product of reflection and delib-eratione.g., the declarant’s age, physical and mental condition, the nature of the event, and subject matter of the statements). Appellant’s strongest case law support lies in Henry v. State, 566 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In Henry, we determined that the trial court erred in precluding cross-examination of a law enforcement witness concerning exculpatory statements made by a defendant charged with narcotics possession. During a consent search, th…
-
Pena v. State, 607 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ily recanted the original false statement he gave to Sergeant Jimenez. See Sanchez, 537 So. 2d 660. Furthermore, the testimony defendant sought to elicit from Sergeant Jimenez would not have impeached or refuted the state’s evidence, Henry v. State, 566 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA), cause dismissed, 576 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1990); the evidence was of little significance and would have been a minimal factor in the jury’s determination. See Pace, 596 So. 2d at 1035. Thus, we hold that the error, if any, was harmless an…
Authorities Cited
- Coco v. State, 62 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1953)
- Coxwell v. State, 361 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Heathcoat, 442 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1983)
- Kennedy Eberhardt v. State, 550 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Renna v. City OF N. Lauderdale, 430 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Heathcoat v. State, 430 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Ackerman v. State, 372 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)