MATTHEW WILLIAMS, 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.
The court held that evidence of an informant's outstanding warrant for a minor offense was relevant impeachment evidence that should have been admitted.
Defendant was convicted of selling cocaine near a school and sentenced as a habitual offender. The State's informant witnessed the transaction but had…
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 Impeachment Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Williams was convicted for selling a $10 cocaine rock within 1,000 feet of school property and sentenced to a fifteen-year term of imprisonment as a habitual offender with a three-year mandatory minimum term.
The question presented is whether the fact that the State’s informant — a witness to the drug transaction — had an outstanding bench warrant for driving with a suspended license,1 was relevant evidence which should have been admitted as impeachment evidence. We hold that the evidence was wrongfully excluded.
Any evidence tending to establish that a witness is appearing for the State for any reason other than to tell the truth should not be kept from the jury. A. McD. v. State, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Lavette v. State, 442 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev. denied, 449 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1984).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
. Driving while a license is under suspension is a second-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to sixty days of incarceration.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earnest Bell v. State, 614 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…d at 608. These two questions were extremely relevant to Charles’ credibility and were the proper subject of cross-examination. See Breedlove v. State, 580 So. 2d at 607-08; DeAngelis v. State, 605 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Williams v. State, 600 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Moreno v. State, 418 So. 2d 1223, 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Watts v. State, 450 So. 2d 265, 267-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hannah v. State, 432 So. 2d 631, 631-32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Charles should have been required to an [*…
-
Balduino Cortes v. State, 670 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…gainst a prosecution witness at the time he testifies, the defense is entitled to bring this fact to the jury’s attention to show bias, motive or self-interest.”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 901, 109 S.Ct. 250, 102 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); Williams v. State, 600 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“Any evidence tending to establish that a witness is appearing for the State for any reason other than to tell the truth should not be kept from the jury.”). Since this case must be remanded for a new trial, we briefly address o…
Authorities Cited
- Cosme Rodriguez v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- McD. v. State, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Lavette v. State, 442 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)