OKEA JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 while the trial court erred in restricting the defendant's rehabilitation on redirect examination, the error was harmless.
During cross-examination, the defendant's prior convictions were revealed. On redirect, the defendant attempted to explain his prior pleas, but the St…
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 Redirect Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
Defendant Okea Johnson appeals his conviction and sentence for sale or delivery of cocaine at or near school property and for possession of cocaine [§§ 893.13(l)(e),(6)(a); 777.011, Fla. Stat. (1993)], contending that the trial court erred by restricting Johnson’s right to rehabilitate himself on redirect examination. We affirm.
Johnson took the stand to testify on his own behalf. During his cross-examination, the State properly was permitted to bring out Johnson’s prior convictions, after which Johnson’s counsel attempted to rehabilitate him by having him testify that he had entered guilty or nolo contendere pleas to the prior charges and by asking, “Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury in this ease why you decided to come to trial?” The court then sustained a State objection and prohibited further inquiry along this line. Had Johnson been permitted to answer, his response [the proffer shows] would have been to explain that he pled guilty or nolo contendere to the prior charges because he was guilty of those charges, but in this case he was innocent so he did not plead.
We agree with Johnson that the law allows such rehabilitation. Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519 (Fla.1986); Hierro v. State, 608 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). However, the State argues that if error was committed, it was harmless. With this we agree. Our review of the record reveals that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction. The extensive evidence of Johnson’s guilt in this case leaves no room to conclude otherwise. As a consequence, the error is harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ziermann v. State, 696 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…reverse and remand for new trial. It was harmful error for the trial court to refuse to permit 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…
-
Scurry v. State, 701 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…[*588] ny conviction. He relies on a line of cases that involve allowing a testifying defendant “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…
-
Williams v. State, 730 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…charged. However, it is common knowledge that drug transactions often involve the use of firearms and violence. See Reyes v. State, 581 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Therefore,. I believe that error, if any, was harmless. See Johnson v. State, 679 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA) (holding that harmless error analysis applies to evidentiary rulings related to anticipatory rehabilitation), review denied, 689 So. 2d 1070 (Fla.1997). I would affirm.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1986)
- Hierro v. State, 608 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)