FREDDIE LEE SMART, 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.
Freddie Lee Smart was convicted of resisting arrest without violence, but the Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, reversed his conviction and remanded for a new trial due to prosecutorial and testimonial misconduct regarding his prior contacts with the arresting officer. The court found that evidence of the defendant's past interactions with police was inadmissible character evidence that was so prejudicial it could not be cured by jury instruction.
The court held that evidence of the defendant's past contacts with the arresting officer was inadmissible character evidence and reversible error. The court further held that the error was not harmless because the approximately eighteen prejudicial statements throughout the trial could not be adequately cured by a jury instruction, even absent a proper curative instruction request.
[1] Evidence of a defendant's past contacts with an arresting officer is inadmissible if its sole relevance is to establish the defendant's bad character.
[2] A curative instruction may be insufficient to dissipate the prejudicial effect of repeated improper character evidence, especially when the trial is brief.
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 statements by the prosecutor and the arresting officer's testimony regarding the defendant's past contacts with the arresting officer, were solely relevant to establish the defendant's bad character, and were therefore inadmissible”
Establishes the core legal error—that evidence of prior police contacts is inadmissible character evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmart was charged with resisting arrest without violence. During trial, the prosecutor made approximately eighteen statements implying the defendant h…
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 Character Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Freddie Lee Smart, appeals from his conviction for resisting arrest without violence. We reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in (a) permitting the prosecutor to argue, over objections, that the arresting officer has had contacts with the defendant in the past, and (b) allowing the arresting officer to testify, over objections, that he has had numerous contacts with the defendant in the past. We agree.
First, the statements by the prosecutor and the arresting officer’s testimony regarding the defendant’s past contacts with the arresting officer, were solely relevant to establish the defendant’s bad character, and were therefore inadmissible. See Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959); State v. Lee, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1988); Gonzalez v. State, 559 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Harris v. State, 427 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Second, under the facts of this case, the defense counsel’s failure to request a curative instruction was not fatal.
The record demonstrates that at one point the defense counsel attempted to make a motion, but the trial court denied the motion without giving the defense counsel an opportunity to state the motion for the record.
Additionally, when taking into consideration that throughout the defendant’s trial, which lasted less than two and one half hours, there were approximately eighteen statements made by the prosecutor and the arresting officer, which clearly implied that the defendant had either been arrested before or that the arresting officer has had numerous contacts with the defendant in the past, we find that a curative instruction would not have been sufficient to dissipate the prejudicial effects of this error. Post v. State, 315 So. 2d 230, (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). As stated in Post, “[t]he die was cast — the damage was done.” Post, 315 So. 2d at 232.
Third, we do not find that the complained of error was harmless. See DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction is reversed and this cause is remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bozeman v. State, 698 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…nd “have exhibited the propensity for violent behavior towards other inmates and staff.” Such testimony is inadmissible. See Broderick v. State, 564 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Bolden v. State, 543 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Smart v. State, 596 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Additionally, Wimberly’s portrayal of the unit’s inmates is legally problematic because it was specific evidence of Bozeman’s bad character when the defendant had not placed his character in issue. This is contrary to sections 9…
-
Nordelo v. State, 603 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…sole relevance is to prove the character or propensity of the accused.” Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla.1990); Bryan v. State, 533 So. 2d 744 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1028, 109 S.Ct. 1765, 104 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989); Smart v. State, 596 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Minick v. State, 560 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). “Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” §§ 90.401, 90.404(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). Here, the officer re…
-
Villanueva v. State, 917 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ssue. See A.K. v. State, 898 So. 2d 1112, 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)(“The state cannot introduce evidence attacking the character of the accused during its case in chief, since the accused must first put his good character in issue.”); Smart v. State, 596 So. 2d 786, 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(holding that arresting officer’s comment regarding his past contact with the defendant was inadmissible because comment was “solely relevant to establish the defendant’s bad character”). Following each comment, the trial cour…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- State v. LEE, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1988)
- Kinchen v. State, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1988)
- Harris v. State, 427 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Post v. State, 315 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Gonzalez v. State, 559 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)