WILLIAM SCURRY, 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.
William Scurry appealed his sexual battery conviction, challenging the trial court's prohibition on testifying about the nature of his prior felony conviction. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the exclusion of such testimony was erroneous and the error was not harmless given credibility was central to the case.
The trial court erred by prohibiting Scurry from testifying about the nature of his prior felony conviction. The error was not harmless because credibility was a central issue, the victim's testimony was rejected as to the co-defendant, the prosecutor specifically attacked Scurry's credibility based on his felon status, and the physical evidence connecting Scurry to the offense was not clearly convincing.
[1] A testifying defendant may introduce evidence of the nature of a prior felony conviction to diminish the effect of impeachment, particularly when credibility is at issue.
[2] When a defendant's credibility is central to the case, testimony regarding the nature of a prior felony conviction, specifically that it did not involve dishonesty, is re…
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 intelligence“The party presenting the testimony of the witness may delve into the nature or circumstances of the convictions for the purpose of rehabilitating the witness by attempting to diminish the effect of the disclosures.”
Establishes the legal standard allowing a defendant to testify about the nature of prior convictions to rehabilitate credibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScurry and a co-defendant were charged with sexual battery. They were tried together; the co-defendant was acquitted. Scurry testified in his own defe…
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 Victim Credibility cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
William Scurry appeals his conviction for sexual battery. He presents several issues for this court’s consideration. Because the trial court erroneously prohibited Scurry from testifying about the nature of his prior felony conviction, and because such error was not harmless error, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Scurry and a co-defendant were charged with the sexual battery of the victim. The two were tried together and Scurry’s co-defendant was acquitted. Scurry testified in his own defense. He argues that the trial court erred by not allowing him to testify to the criminal charge underlying his prior felo 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 trial. The State argues that Lawhome does not authorize testimony as to the nature of the prior felony conviction itself.
Lawhome discusses cases that state when a witness is impeached by prior criminal convictions, he may “state the nature of the crime.” 500 So. 2d at 522. “The party presenting the testimony of the witness may delve into the nature or circumstances of the convictions for the purpose of rehabilitating the witness by. attempting to diminish the effect of the disclosures.” 500 So. 2d at 522 (citations omitted). Scurry wanted to testify that his prior conviction was for a drug offense, not for an offense involving dishonesty or a false statement. In light of the credibility issue involved in this case, Scurry’s proposed testimony was relevant. Indeed, in its closing, the State argued, “Convicted felons are not paragons of virtue either. Please consider that when you’re evaluating testimony and credibility.”
The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Credibility was clearly an issue. Not only did the jury reject the victim’s testimony as to the sexual battery by the co-defendant, but the prosecutor specifically argued Scurry’s lack of credibility because of his status as a convicted felon. The physical evidence that connected Scurry to the offense was not clearly convincing. Therefore, the State has not met its burden of showing that the error was harmless and we are required to reverse Scurry’s conviction.
We reject without discussion Scurry’s remaining issues, except for the issue concerning the denial of his motion to compel the production of the victim’s HRS records. In State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Lopez, 604 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), the Fourth District denied a petition for writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s granting of a criminal defendant’s motion for in camera review of a juvenile’s records. The trial court had concluded that the defendant had the right to know whether the records contained information necessary to his defense.
We agree with Scurry that the court should have conducted an in camera review of the victim’s HRS records. In fact, the attorney representing HRS offered to allow the judge to review the files. Although Scurry may have been “fishing,” the records may very well contain some information relevant to the victim’s credibility and ability to remember. In light of our reversal for a new trial, on remand the trial court shall conduct an in camera hearing of the victim’s HRS records.
In conclusion, we reverse Scurry’s conviction for sexual battery and remand for a new trial.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 730 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…about the nature or character of the damaging information — in other words, to rehabilitate [himself] before he [was] impeached.” Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519, 521 (Fla.1986). See also Bell v. State, 491 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1986); Scurry v. State, 701 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Ziermann v. State, 696 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The Court in Lawhome stated: [W]hile the impeaching party may only inquire as to the existence of convictions and their number (or, if the matter be denied, may show the con…1 / 2
-
Green v. State, 735 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…new trial. During Green’s testimony at trial, the court erred in refusing to allow him to explain why he 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 r…
-
Moore v. State, 765 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…r the purpose of rehabilitating the witness by attempting to diminish the effect of the disclosures.” Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519, 522 (Fla.1986) (citations omitted). See also Green v. State, 735 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Scurry v. State, 701 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). In our view, it makes no difference that Moore’s prior convictions were based on pleas of nolo contendere as opposed to guilty; either way, he was entitled to explain the circumstances of the convictions. See Johnson v. State, 67…
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)
- Ziermann v. State, 696 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Okea Johnson v. State, 679 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Vann v. State, 666 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- State v. Lopez, 604 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)