JAMES MARCHINA, 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.
James Marchina was convicted of sexual battery on a young boy, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the prosecution improperly elicited testimony about other pending charges involving "little girls," which was inflammatory character evidence that violated the evidence rules.
The testimony should not have been admitted because under section 90.403, its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court rejected the state's argument that Marchina had "invited" the inquiry by mentioning the other charges on direct examination.
[1] Evidence is inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
[2] Evidence of other pending charges is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, even if the defendant mentions the…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“section 90.403 precludes evidence, even though it may be relevant, if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice”
States the governing legal standard for excluding evidence despite its relevance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarchina was tried for sexual batteries on a young boy. The state introduced evidence that Marchina left town after the alleged offenses. On direct ex…
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 Propensity Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellant challenges convictions obtained after the state elicited testimony regarding the nature of other pending charges. We conclude that under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, this testimony should not have been received into evidence as its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
The appellant was tried upon an information charging sexual batteries upon a young boy, and the state introduced evidence that the appellant had left town in the evening after the alleged offenses. On direct examination the appellant acknowledged leaving the area, explaining that he had been advised that a young girl was raped in the trailer park where he lived and that when he saw two police cars in front of his residence he “thought it was going to be the same stuff” because he “had trouble with them about two months before this_” The appellant indicated that the prior trouble was an arrest and pending case on unrelated charges.
On cross-examination the prosecutor expressed a desire to question the appellant regarding these other pending charges. The appellant’s counsel argued that this inquiry should be precluded under section 90.403 due to the prejudice which would ensue. The court allowed the prosecutor to inquire as to the other charges, and upon such questioning the appellant revealed that the charges “involved little girls.”
In allowing this line of questioning the court suggested that the appellant had invited the inquiry by referring to the other charges when testifying on direct examination. However, section 90.403 precludes evidence, even though it may be relevant, if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See State v. McClain, 525 So. 2d 420 (Fla.1988). This contemplates a balancing test with the probative value for the party offering the evidence being weighed against the danger of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the evidence.
The contested testimony in the present case could have very little legitimate probative value for the prosecution. Even if the testimony might provide some support for the appellant’s explanation as to why he fled after seeing the police at his residence, this is not of probative value for the prosecution as it favors the defense. And while it tends to reflect bad character or propensity, such proof is precluded under section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes. During closing argument the prosecutor nevertheless emphasized this improper use of the testimony, thereby highlighting the danger of unfair prejudice. Because the testimony was used for an impermissible purpose, and any legitimate probative value for the prosecution was clearly and substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the testimony should have been excluded under section 90.403.
The appellant’s convictions are reversed and the case is remanded.
MINER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyon Dale Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…idence under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes, requires that a court carefully evaluate the probative value of the evidence to the party favoring admission, and compare this to the unfair prejudice to the party opposing admission. Marchina v. State, 702 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In Marchina, a defendant facing sexual-battery charges mentioned on direct examination that he had “trouble” before with law-enforcement officers, explaining why he left a trailer park when he saw law enforcement officers. The t…
-
Olen Clay Gorby v. State, 819 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 2002)…he State planned to call, and with whom Gorby had engaged in previous contact, were not churchgoing members because Gorby only confided in people who were “of the same breed” as himself. In support of this position Gorby relies on Marchina v. State, 702 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), which is factually distinguishable. In Marchina, the defendant was on the witness stand when the prosecutor sought to explore other charges that might have been pending against the defendant, and as to which the district court d…
-
Webster v. Body Dynamics, Inc., 27 So. 3d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…weigh any prejudice the evidence could create vis a vis its probative value; thus, the section 90.403 analysis was compromised. The evidence was, in fact, relevant, and its prejudicial value must be considered in that context. Cf. Marchina v. State, 702 So. 2d 1369, 1369-70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (where evidence has “little legitimate probative value,” court should exclude evidence if substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice). The exclusion of this evidence left the jury with the incorrect impressi…
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
- THE Florida BAR v. Burton R. Levey, 525 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1988)