KEVIN CHARLES, 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.
Kevin Charles was convicted of robbery with a firearm and appealed, arguing that the prosecutor improperly elicited a detective's opinion that he had been evasive during questioning. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that while the prosecutor's line of questioning was improper, the trial court sustained the defense objection and the defendant waived the issue by failing to request a curative instruction or mistrial.
The conviction is affirmed because, although the prosecutor's questioning was improper and the trial court should not have allowed it to proceed after sustaining the objection, the defense waived the issue by failing to request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial despite the trial court's sustained objection.
[1] Police officers are prohibited from offering opinions as to the truthfulness of a defendant.
[2] A defendant waives an issue on appeal by failing to request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial after an improper question is posed and objected to.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Clearly, police officers, as well as other witnesses, are prohibited from offering opinions as to the truthfulness of a witness or a defendant.”
Establishes the core rule that the prosecutor violated by asking the detective for an opinion on the defendant's evasiveness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA detective who responded to the crime scene and interviewed multiple people testified at trial. During cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the de…
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 Waiver Of Issues On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and appeals, arguing that prejudicial error occurred when the prosecutor elicited the detective’s opinion that defendant had been evasive when telling his version of what had happened. We affirm.
The following colloquy occurred when a detective, who had gone to the scene of the crime immediately thereafter and interviewed a number of people, was being questioned by the prosecutor:
Q. (The Prosecutor): Now, Detective Jones, in your job as a detective, I assume you’ve had to deal with a number of different people and individuals, interviewing witnesses, defendants, victims, things of that nature; is that correct?
A. Yes. Q. (The Prosecutor): And during that period of time, have you had interviews with individuals that were evasive or that would not want to tell you the whole truth?
A. Sure, Yes. (The Defense): Objection, Your Honor. The Court: Sustained. Q. (The Prosecutor): Okay. And based on your experience and training as an officer— (The Defense): Objection, Your Honor. The Court: Let’s hear the rest of the question before you object. Q. (The Defense): Judge, I’d like to respond to that objection if I could. It was, in fact, posed. The Court: Ask your question, counsel. Q. (The Prosecutor): Based on your training and experience as an officer, would you say that the defendant was evasive when he was telling you his story?
A. Yes. The Court: Asked and answered. Sustain the objection. Move on. He’s already answered. Clearly, police officers, as well as other witnesses, are prohibited from offering opinions as to the truthfulness of a witness or a defendant. Capehart v. State, 583 So. 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1065, 112 S.Ct. 955, 117 L.Ed.2d 122 (1992); Farley v. State, 324 So. 2d 662, 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1976); accord, Hayes v. State, 660 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1995); Williams v. State, 627 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Cf. Gianfrancisco v. State, 570 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
We are at a loss to understand why the prosecutor would have embarked in this area in the first place, let alone pursued it after the trial court sustained defendant’s objection. Nor should the court have allowed any further questions in this area once the objection had been sustained. The problem is that the court did sustain defendant’s objection at all times, and the defense did not ask for a curative instruction or move for a mistrial. We therefore conclude that the issue has been waived, Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978), but admonish the prosecutor to refrain from pursuing this obviously improper line of questioning in the future. Affirmed.
STONE and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Johnson, 695 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…3d DCA 1996), rev. granted, 689 So. 2d 1072 (Fla.1997). . See State v. Riley, 617 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). . See Lindsey v. State, 636 So. 2d 1327 (Fla.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 972, 115 S.Ct. 444, 130 L.Ed.2d 354 (1994); Charles v. State, 683 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Dobson v. State, 566 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 577 So. 2d 1326 (Fla.1991). . Section 316.066(4) provides; Except as specified in this subsection, each accident report made by a person involved in an accident…
-
Latonda Latrell Shannon v. State, 753 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ll that Shannon was untruthful during the interrogation. It is well established that police officers cannot give their opinions as to the truthfulness of a defendant. See, e.g., Capehart v. State, 583 So. 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla.1991); Charles v. State, 683 So. 2d 583, 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“Clearly, police officers, as well as other witnesses, are prohibited from offering opinions as to the truthfulness of a witness or a defendant.”); Farley v. State, 324 So. 2d 662, 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); accord Hayes v. S…
-
Mansfield v. State, 107 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…spite these objections both being sustained, the officer’s “yes” response to one of the questions was not stricken from the record. Clearly this line of questioning was improper as soliciting an opinion on appellant’s truthfulness, Charles v. State, 683 So. 2d 583, 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and since the only evidence introduced at trial on the question of self-defense was contained in the police statement, any improper discrediting of the statement had the potential to prejudice appellant. Accordingly, remand…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- Hayes v. State, 660 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1995)
- Capehart v. State, 583 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1991)
- Farley v. State, 324 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Williams v. State, 627 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Hill v. Pennsylvania, 502 U.S. 1065 (U.S. 1992)
- Thornton v. Ogden Allied Aviation Fueling Co., Inc., 502 U.S. 1065 (U.S. 1992)
- Gianfrancisco v. State, 570 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)