STEVEN QUARRELLS, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the rebuttal witness's testimony, as it was admissible as substantive evidence of guilt.
The defendant was convicted of aggravated assault on an officer, resisting an officer with violence, and aiding escape. The state called a witness to …
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 Aggravated Assault On A Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
DIAMANTIS, Judge.
In appealing his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer with violence, and aiding escape, Steven Quarrells’ sole contention is that the trial court erred by allowing the state to call David Reed as a rebuttal witness. We affirm because this testimony would have been admissible during the state’s case-in-chief.
The trial court allowed the state to present, as rebuttal evidence, Reed’s testimony that Quarrells called Reed from jail and attempted to influence Reed to testify falsely. Reed’s testimony did not qualify as rebuttal evidence because it failed to explain or contradict material evidence offered by Quarrells. See Britton v. State, 414 So. 2d 638, 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).1 Nevertheless, Reed’s testimony that Quarrells personally attempted to influence him to testify falsely was admissible as substantive evidence of Quarrells’ guilt. See Manuel v. State, 524 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Accordingly, the trial court did not commit reversible error in admitting Reed’s testimony because the testimony was admissible during the state’s case-in-chief, and the trial court had broad discretion to determine the order of presentation of evidence and witnesses. See Britton v. State, 414 So. 2d at 639. Accord Gilbert v. State, 547 So. 2d 246, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 557 So. 2d 35 (Fla.1990).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . The trial court apparently admitted Reed’s testimony to rebut testimony elicited by the state on its cross-examination of defense witness Chad Flanders. Reed’s testimony did not explain or contradict Flanders’ testimony, which merely revealed that Quarrells called Flanders several times from jail and that they talked "about what was happening” to Quarrells.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ford v. State, 801 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…relevant ... since it indicates a desire to evade prosecution and is evidence of consciousness of guilt.” Coronado v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267, 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); see Baker v. State, 760 So. 2d 1085, 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Quarrells v. State, 641 So. 2d 490, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Knotts v. State, 533 So. 2d 826, 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Like flight, such threats must have a nexus with the crime charged in order to be relevánt. See Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9, 20-21 (Fla.1985). Where relevance is d…
-
Baker v. State, 760 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ss of guilt. Swafford v. State, 533 So. 2d 270, 271 (Fla.1988); Sireci v. State, 399 So. 2d 964, 968 (Fla.1981); Lopez v. State, 716 So. 2d 301, 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Coronado v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267, 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Quarrells v. State, 641 So. 2d 490, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Sixth, and last, Baker argues the trial court erred in failing to specify in the written judgment whether the sentence for robbery was to run concurrent with the sentence for felony murder. The trial court said at the sent…
-
State v. Rodriguez, 907 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…nticipated trial testimony of Azcuy. Evidence the defendant tried to suborn perjury in the defendant’s own trial is admissible as showing the defendant’s consciousness of guilt — and that is so whether Azcuy testifies or not. See Quarrells v. State, 641 So. 2d 490, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Manuel v. State, 524 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). For the stated reasons, the order excluding the witnesses is quashed. This ruling is effective immediately and will not be delayed by the filing of a motion for reh…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Britton v. State, 414 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Williams v. State, 524 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Manuel v. State, 524 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Gilbert v. State, 547 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)