DENNIS VANN, 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.
Reversal required because trial court improperly prevented defendant from explaining his guilty plea during rehabilitation questioning, violating the principle established in Lawhorne v. State that a witness may be asked impeachment questions to rehabilitate credibility before cross-examination.
A defendant may be asked about prior guilty pleas during direct examination to rehabilitate his credibility, and the trial court may control the scope of resulting cross-examination to prevent undue wandering.
[1] A defendant may be questioned during direct examination about the reasons for prior guilty pleas as part of a genuine attempt to rehabilitate credibility before anticipat…
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“It is true that by attempting to rehabilitate a witness by having him testify that past convictions were obtained by pleas of guilty, a party opens the door somewhat to allow the other party to question the witness about the reasons for pleading guilty. The difficulty this may present in certain cases is not a sufficient reason to restrict a genuine attempt at rehabilitation.”
Court explaining that opening the door to rehabilitation questions does not justify restricting legitimate credibility rehabilitation efforts.
Appellant was asked by his lawyer at trial whether he had been convicted of a felony; he answered that he pleaded out once, but the court refused to a…
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 Direct Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is directly on point with Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519 (Fla.1986) and because of this a reversal is mandated.
Appellant was asked by his lawyer at trial if he had “ever been convicted of a felony.” He said he “pleaded out once.” He was then asked why he “didn’t take that case to trial.” The court would not allow him to answer. In Lawhome it was held that a witness, anticipating that he will be asked impeachment questions, may be asked those questions in an attempt to rehabilitate him before the other side tries to discredit him. The court referred to “reduc[ing] the harmful consequence” and “ ‘take the wind out of the sails’ of an attack on credibility or to ‘soften the blow’ of anticipated inquiries or revelations.”
The court further held that
It is true that by attempting to rehabilitate a witness by having him testify that past convictions were obtained by pleas of guilty, a party opens the door somewhat to allow the other party to question the witness about the reasons for pleading guilty. The difficulty this may present in certain cases is not a sufficient reason to restrict a genuine attempt at rehabilitation. The extent to which a party “opens the door” can be determined and controlled by the court to prevent the parties from wandering too far afield. Here, it is precisely what was discussed in Lawhome that is raised here.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH, GOSHORN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ziermann v. State, 696 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…it appellant’s counsel to conduct direct examination of his client in accordance with Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519, 521 (Fla.1986); Johnson v. State, 679 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), rev. denied, 689 So. 2d 1070 (Fla.1997); and Vann v. State, 666 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The only eyewitness testimony as to what happened was the conflicting testimony of the victim and appellant. Thus, the credibility of appellant was significant in this case. If the defense had been permitted to ask appellant a…
-
Scurry v. State, 701 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…anticipatory rehabilitation.” See Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519 (Fla.1986); Ziermann v. State, 696 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Johnson v. State, 679 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), review denied, 689 So. 2d 1070 (Fla.1997); and Vann v. State, 666 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). In Lawhome, the issue was whether the defendant could testify that he had entered pleas in his prior cases, rather than proceed to trial. The State argues that Lawhome does not authorize testimony as to the nature of the prior f…
-
Green v. State, 735 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…pleaded guilty to prior charges but chose to go to trial in the present case. See Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519 (Fla.1986); Scurry v. State, 701 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Ziermann v. State, 696 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Vann v. State, 666 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The State contends this error was harmless. We disagree because Green’s explanation might well have influenced the jury’s resolution of this credibility contest between Green and the arresting officer. See Scurry, 701 So. 2d at…
Authorities Cited
- Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1986)