CHRISTOPHER A. SCOTT, 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 trial court erred in excluding evidence of the victim's probationary status, which was relevant to her credibility and potential bias.
The defendant was convicted of a lewd act. The trial court excluded evidence that the victim, the sole witness, was on probation at the time of trial.…
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 Witness Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Christopher A. Scott appeals his conviction for committing a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child younger than 16 years of age. We conclude that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that the victim was on probation at the time of Scott’s trial and reverse.
In Daniels v. State, 374 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), this court held that a juvenile who is a key prosecution witness may be questioned about his juvenile probationary status. Such evidence has probative value to show that the witness has motive to testify so as to please authorities who have discretion over his status. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Lusk v. State, 531 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (holding that victim’s probationary status at the time of trial was admissible to show his possible bias); Waits v. State, 450 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (holding that it was error to limit the defendant’s cross-examination of a State witness regarding the witness’s probationary status at the time of trial because such evidence could be used to demonstrate the witness’s bias or motive for testifying); Daniels, 374 So. 2d at 1167.
In the present case, there were no other witnesses to the crime and there was no physical evidence connecting Scott to the crime. Consequently, the victim’s credibility was crucial to the State’s case. The victim had been adjudicated delinquent of a felony and was on probation at the time of Scott’s trial. Therefore, the defense should have been allowed to question the victim about her probationary status.
Accordingly, we reverse Scott’s conviction and remand this cause for a new trial.
PARKER, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillips v. State, 739 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…he victim knew she was on probation, that uncertainty went to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility. Evidence of a witness’s probationary status has probative value to show that the witness may have bias or motive. See Scott v. State, 730 So. 2d 732, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Affirmed. WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974)
- Lusk v. State, 531 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- O'Neil v. Travelers Ins. Co., 450 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Watts v. State, 450 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Daniels v. State, 374 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)