DAVID ERICK CANTERO, 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.
David Erick Cantero appeals his armed robbery conviction, challenging the prosecutor's references to his prior jail appearance for probation violations and unrelated crimes. The court found these references highly prejudicial, lacking probative value and denying Cantero a fair trial, and reversed for a new trial.
The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination questions and closing argument statements about Cantero's jail appearance and prior crimes were highly prejudicial, lacked probative value, and denied Cantero a fair trial. The evidence was inadmissible both because Cantero had given no contradictory testimony to impeach and because the prosecutor's assertion was unsworn testimony improperly introduced as evidence.
[1] A prosecutor's cross-examination of a defendant concerning unrelated prior crimes is impermissible when it lacks probative value and is so prejudicial as to deny the defe…
[2] Evidence of an unrelated crime is irrelevant to the instant offense and serves only to prejudice the defendant's character in the eyes of the jury.
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“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.”
The court's central holding that the prosecutor's line of questioning violated Cantero's right to a fair trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCantero was charged with armed robbery. The robbery victim testified the robber wore dark glasses. Cantero's defense included that he had his tinted g…
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
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for armed robbery. We find merit in his argument that the prosecutor’s references to his prior crimes were highly prejudicial and denied him a fair trial. Since we reverse on this issue, we need not address his remaining points on appeal. The victim of the robbery testified at trial that the robber was wearing dark glasses. Part of the appellant’s defense was that he had his tinted glasses bleached at the mall the week before the robbery occurred. In an attempt to impeach the appellant’s testimony concerning his activities the week before the robbery, the prosecutor asked, “You couldn’t have gone to the mall on January 3 and had your tint taken out of your glasses, could you?” The appellant responded that he could not remember the exact date he was at the mall. The prosecutor then asked, “Did you appear in court as an inmate in jail clothes for violation of probation for burglary and petit theft on January 4?” The defense objected and the trial court overruled the objection. The prosecutor continued this line of questioning and later, during closing argument, 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. 556, 70 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981). In addition, the prosecutor’s assertions in closing argument that he saw the appellant in jail was impermissible unsworn testimony which added to the prejudice at trial.
The state argues that the impeachment was proper under section 90.608(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1989), which allows the credibility of a witness to be attacked by evidence which contradicts a material fact stated by the witness. However, the appellant stated that he did not know what date he was at the mall and, therefore, he had no testimony on the subject to contradict. Further, the prosecutor’s statement concerning the appellant’s whereabouts was not admissible evidence.
Since the state failed to show that the prejudicial comments did not contribute to the verdict, State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986), we reverse the appellant’s judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
LEHAN, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arroyo-Munoz v. State, 744 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…mment on facts not in evidence. We agree. Although testimony about a false identity and intoxication were relevant to Benitez’s credibility, a prosecutor may not give unsworn testimony regarding facts outside the record. See, e.g., Cantero v. State, 612 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). This error became particularly egregious when the prosecutor, during closing arguments, urged that the jury should not believe Benitez because he withheld his true name. Since Benitez was the sole witness the defense presented t…
-
Isom v. State, 81 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…mproperly bolstered the testimony of the lead detective and the co-defendant, see Servis v. State, 855 So. 2d 1190, 1194-95 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), informed the jury that Mr. Isom had been in jail for over six months before trial, see Cantero v. State, 612 So. 2d 634, 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and simply made up evidence as to how exposure to sunlight affects the complexion of African Americans. See Ford v. State, 702 So. 2d 279, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). “A criminal trial is a neutral arena wherein both sides pl…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981)
- Tucker v. Zant, 454 U.S. 1022 (U.S. 1981)
- Palmer v. State, 548 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)