JEFFREY RIMES, 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.
Jeffrey Rimes appealed his cocaine sale and possession convictions, arguing the trial court erred by admitting prejudicial testimony that the deputy obtained his photograph from a 'vice and narcotics file,' suggesting prior criminal activity. The court reversed because this implied other drug-related conduct was inadmissible under Florida's rule against other crimes evidence, and no curative instruction could remedy the prejudicial effect.
The court reversed because the testimony suggesting Rimes had prior involvement in drug activity was inadmissible character evidence, and the trial court's denial of the mistrial motion and refusal to give a curative instruction constituted reversible error. The testimony was not harmless error under the applicable standard.
[1] Introducing evidence that suggests a defendant has a criminal history or has been involved in similar criminal activity, when such evidence is not otherwise admissible, c…
[2] A trial court's denial of a motion for a mistrial is reversible error when the jury is left with the impression that objectionable testimony is relevant.
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 testimony that the picture was taken from the vice and narcotics file clearly implied that Rimes had on prior occasions been involved in the same activity for which he was on trial.”
Establishes that the problematic testimony constituted inadmissible character evidence suggesting prior similar criminal activity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputy Niles conducted an undercover purchase of crack cocaine from Rimes on May 14, 1992. Nine days later, Niles identified Rimes from a photograph o…
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 Sale Of Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Jeffrey Rimes appeals his convictions for sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine. We reverse because the trial court erred in denying a motion for a mistrial after the state introduced evidence suggesting Rimes had previously been involved in similar criminal activity.
The charges against Rimes resulted from a street purchase of a twenty-dollar piece of crack cocaine by Deputy Gerald Niles on May 14, 1992. Deputy Niles based his identification of Rimes on a photograph he examined nine days after the transaction. Rimes was arrested' more than nine months later. At a suppression hearing, Deputy Niles testified that he obtained the photograph of Rimes from the St. Petersburg Police “vice and narcotics file.”
At trial, after Deputy Niles testified that he secured a photograph of Rimes, the assistant state attorney asked, “[a]nd where did you get that photograph?” His answer was the same given at the suppression hearing, “From the vice and narcotics file.” Rimes immediately moved for a mistrial and a curative instruction. The trial court took the motion for mistrial under advisement and subsequently denied it. The court denied the request for a curative instruction, believing it would draw additional attention to the testimony. Although we agree that a curative instruction would accentuate the testimony, the failure to give an instruction left the jury with the impression that the objectionable testimony was relevant.
We conclude our prior holding in Abbott v. State, 622 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), compels reversal. In Abbott, a state witness testified that the defendant was “known to be a larger scale drug dealer.” 622 So. 2d at 602. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for mistrial and instructed the jury to disregard the testimony. This court reversed, holding that the “curative instruction was ineffective to overcome the prejudicial effect of the implication that the appellant was involved in other, more serious drug activity.” 622 So. 2d at 602.
Although we recognize the comment in Abbott was arguably more egregious than the testimony in this case, we reject the state’s argument that the admission of the testimony was harmless error. Rimes presented testimony contesting he was the person involved in the drug transaction. The testimony that the picture was taken from the vice and narcotics file clearly implied that Rimes had on prior occasions been involved in the same activity for which he was on trial. Ad ditionally, the error was compounded because the state’s question clearly invited the witness’ testimony. We find the state has not met its burden of proving harmless error under the standard of State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Therefore, we reverse Rimes’ convictions and remand for a new trial.
As to Rimes’ remaining point on appeal, we reject his argument that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress Deputy Niles’ identification testimony. On this point, we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for a new trial.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. State, 707 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1997)…and motion for mistrial denied. So long as the.defendant makes a timely specific objection and moves for a mistrial, as Walker did here, a curative instruction need not be requested. Spencer v. State, 645 So. 2d 377, 383 (Fla.1994); Rimes v. State, 645 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (curative instruction only would have accentuated prosecutor’s question inviting improper testimony). . Contrary to the State's assertions, this claim has been preserved for appellate review. The trial court knew at the time Walk…
-
Clark v. State, 742 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ting Clark’s guilt outweighs any prejudice. Having considered all of the testimony and evidence presented in this case, we are unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the guilty verdicts. See Rimes v. State, 645 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Williams v. State, 692 So. 2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Based on our resolution of this issue, we decline to address the remaining issues Clark raised on appeal. Rever…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Abbott v. State, 622 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)