MACK ARTHUR MOTON, 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.
The court held that the state improperly elicited character evidence, and this error was not harmless.
[1] Evidence of a witness's character is generally inadmissible unless the witness's character has been attacked.
[2] When a witness's character is attacked, proof of that character is limited to testimony in the form of reputation.
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 intelligenceDuring a trial for armed robbery, the prosecutor asked a witness to make general observations about a key state witness, LaFrance. The employer then t…
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 Bolstering Witness Credibility cases and more on FLexlaw
MUIR, CELESTE HARDEE, Associate Judge.
Mack Arthur Moton appeals the judgment of conviction for armed robbery with a firearm after a denial of his motion for mistrial. We reverse because the state improperly elicited character evidence involving LaFrance, a key state witness, and the error was not harmless.
Evidence of the character of a witness is irrelevant and thus inadmissible. See §§ 90.402 and 90.404, Fla. Stat. The only exception is when that character has been attacked. § 90.609, Fla. Stat. Proof of the characteristic is limited to testimony in the form of reputation. § 90.609, Fla. Stat. At the trial, the prosecutor asked the employer of LaFrance “to make some general observations about Mr. LaFrance.” The trial judge overruled a timely objection to this question and in response, the employer stated that Mr. LaFrance was: “honest, trustworthy ...” Defense counsel objected:
Judge again, I object. This is now a characterization of the previous witness as to his honesty and integrity and I object to that and ask that comment be stricken from the record and ask that the jury disregard it. And I reserve a motion ... [for mistrial made later at sidebar],
Although the credibility of the state witness LaFrance had been vigorously attacked by defense counsel, the trial court failed to timely cure the prejudice engendered by the prosecutor’s attempt to bolster the state witness’ credibility through another witness. At a minimum, the trial judge should have instructed the jury to disregard the state witness’ comment on credibility improperly elicited by the prosecutor. See Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244, 252 (Fla. 1995), approving a curative instruction for an improper comment on credibility.
In this case in which the issue of credibility of the state witness LaFrance is crucial, we cannot say that the judge’s error is harmless. See Alvarado v. State, 521 So. 2d 180, 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new (third) trial.
DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Esparza v. State, 743 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…e for second degree murder, Jorge Armando Esparza argues that the trial court improperly permitted the prosecutor to use one of its witnesses to bolster the testimony or credibility of another of its witnesses at the trial below. See Moton v. State, 697 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Buckner v. State, 689 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The state correctly points out on this appeal, however, that this issue was not preserved for appellate review where it was not the basis of the defense objection inter…
Authorities Cited
- Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995)
- Alvarado v. State, 521 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)