ANTHONY BANKS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the conviction and sentence of appellant because the trial court erred in allowing the state to cross-examine the appellant as to the nature of his prior convictions. See Goodman v. State, 336 So. 2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 342 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1977). In this case the appellant’s recitations as to the number of his convictions were truthful and did not attempt to mislead the jury in any way. See Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784 (Fla.1992). Therefore, the state was precluded from asking appellant about the nature of those convictions. As appellant’s credibility was very much an issue in the case, the state’s questioning does not constitute harmless error. Reversed and remanded.
DELL, C.J., and WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross v. State, 913 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Usually, the- prosecutor is not allowed to delvé into the nature of- a defendant’s prior convictions or the- circumstances surrounding them. [*1187] Green v. State, 720 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Banks v. State, 655 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). This is so even when the defendant chooses to bring out the conviction first on direct examination. See Sneed v. State, 397 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). An exception exists, however, when the defendant attempts to mislead th…
-
Rogers v. State, 964 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…pically, “the prosecutor is not allowed to delve into the nature of a defendant’s prior [*223] convictions or the circumstances surrounding them.” Ross, 913 So. 2d at 1186 (citing Green v. State, 720 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)); Banks v. State, 655 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). This limitation applies even when the defendant first brings out a conviction on direct examination. Ross, 913 So. 2d at 1187; see Sneed v. State, 397 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). An exception to the general rule exists when…
-
Dwann Green v. State, 720 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…Before Green was questioned, the prosecution and defense stipulated that he had two prior convictions for the purpose of impeachment. Green’s statement that the convictions were on appeal did not open the door to further inquiry. See Banks v. State, 655 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Payne v. State, 426 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Even had Green not admitted that he had two prior convictions, the only proper method of im [*1151] peachment would have been to introduce certified records of the convictions.…
Authorities Cited
- Konstantinos X. Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1992)
- Goodman v. State, 336 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)