JAMES FANNIN, 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.
Appellant's conviction for capital sexual battery affirmed; trial counsel's failure to object to pedophile profile testimony was not ineffective assistance because the testimony's admissibility was unsettled law at the time of trial in 1990.
Counsel's failure to object to pedophile profile testimony does not constitute ineffective assistance when no appellate court had ruled on admissibility at the time of trial.
[1] Counsel's failure to object to evidence does not constitute ineffective assistance when the legal status of the evidence was unsettled at the time of trial and no appella…
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 intelligence“the profile testimony in this case would have been inadmissible under today's case law. However, in 1990 when the appellant's case was tried, no appellate court had ruled on the admissibility of pedophile testimony”
Court explaining why counsel's failure to object was not unreasonable despite current inadmissibility of the evidence.
Appellant was convicted of five counts of capital sexual battery. At trial in 1990, expert testimony regarding a pedophile profile was admitted.…
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 Substantive Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was convicted of five counts of capital sexual battery. He now challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief in which he asserted various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the summary denial of the appellant’s motion and write to discuss one of his claims.
The appellant argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to expert testimony regarding the “pedophile profile.” The trial court determined that counsel’s performance was not deficient because the testimony was properly admitted “for the purpose of juror understanding.” The supreme court has recently held that pedophile profile testimony is not admissible as substantive evidence or as background information. Flanagan v. State, 625 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1993). Thus, the profile testimony in this case would have been inadmissible under today’s case law. However, in 1990 when the appellant’s case was tried, no appellate court had ruled on the admissibility of pedophile testimony, and indeed, in 1991 in Flanagan v. State, 586 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (en banc), approved in part, 625 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1993), disapproved in part by State v. Jones, 625 So. 2d 821 (Fla.1993), five of the eleven judges sitting on the case indicated that such testimony was admissible as background information to promote juror understanding. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that failure to object to this testimony was unreasonable. See e.g. Cox v. State, 407 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur. BENTON, J., concurs in result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Flanagan v. State, 625 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1993)
- Flanagan v. State, 586 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- State v. Jones, 625 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1993)
- COX v. State, 407 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)