MICHAEL BRADLEY TUELL, 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 trial court erred in not allowing the defendant to cross-examine juvenile witnesses about pending criminal charges against them.
Appellant was convicted of drug offenses. He argued insufficient evidence and that the trial court improperly restricted his cross-examination of juve…
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 Impeachment Of Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant was convicted of several counts of delivery of drugs to a minor and one count of possessing drug paraphernalia. We reject his argument that there was insufficient evidence for the convictions, but agree that the trial court erred in not allowing him to cross-examine two juveniles about criminal charges pending against them.
The trial court refused to allow the cross-examination of the witnesses on the pending charges on the assumption that, because they were juveniles, this information was confidential. The right to cross-examine witnesses under the Sixth Amendment, however, outweighs the state’s interest in preserving the confidentiality of juvenile delinquency records. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). Because pending charges against a prosecution witness are relevant to show bias, motive or self-interest, Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403 (Fla.1988), the court erred in not allowing this cross-examination.
Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in not allowing him to impeach one of the juvenile witnesses with information she had posted on a website; however, he has cited no authority supporting his argument. See Farinas v. State, 569 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1990) (evidence of particular acts of misconduct cannot be used to impeach the credibility of a witness).
Reversed for a new trial.
WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K.A.A. v. State, 109 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…unlawfully possessing a gun on school grounds. K.A.A. argues that the trial court erred in not allowing him to cross-examine the State’s juvenile witness about criminal charges pending against the witness. We agree and reverse. In Tuell v. State, 905 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), we held that a defendant has the right to examine a juvenile prosecution witness about his/her pending criminal charges to show bias, motive or self-interest. Id. at 930 (citing Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403, 409 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974)
- Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1988)
- Farinas v. State, 569 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1990)