JOSEPH JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Joseph Johnson was convicted of burglary of an occupied dwelling and petit theft after testifying in his own defense. The appellate court reversed because the trial court improperly allowed the prosecution to cross-examine Johnson about the specific nature of his prior burglary convictions when his testimony about not committing check fraud did not open the door to such inquiries.
The court held that the trial court erred in allowing the State to inquire into the specific nature of Johnson's prior burglary convictions. Johnson's testimony about not committing check fraud was neither false nor misleading and did not suggest he had not committed a burglary, so it did not fall within the exception allowing specific impeachment by prior convictions.
[1] A witness's credibility may be attacked by introducing evidence of a prior felony conviction, but the State is generally restricted to asking if the witness was previousl…
[2] The State may inquire further into the nature of a witness's prior convictions to dispel a false impression if the witness attempts to mislead the jury about those convic…
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“Under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2001), a party may attack the credibility of a witness by introducing evidence of a prior felony conviction. The general rule for impeachment by prior convictions is that the State is restricted to asking a witness if he or she has previously been convicted of a crime, and if so, the number of times.”
Establishes the general rule limiting impeachment by prior convictions to existence and number only
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson testified in his own defense at trial for burglary and petit theft of a checkbook. During cross-examination, when asked whether he intended to…
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 Burglary Of An Occupied Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
GERSTEN, Judge.
Joseph Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary of an occupied dwelling and petit theft of a checkbook. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to cross-examine him on the specific nature of his prior convictions. We agree and reverse.
In this case, Johnson testified in his own defense. On direct examination, his attorney asked if he had ever been convicted. Johnson testified truthfully that he had been convicted ten times.
On cross examination, the State questioned Johnson about why he took the victim’s checkbook. The State further inquired about whether Johnson intended to “cut” checks from the victim’s checkbook. Johnson responded that “neither one of my convictions come from cutting checks.”
The State requested a sidebar and argued that Johnson’s testimony, that he would not have written a fraudulent check, opened the door to the State asking Johnson about the nature of his prior convictions, specifically his prior burglary convictions. The trial court agreed and allowed the State to ask Johnson, “what are your convictions for?” Johnson responded, “I am not going to say that.” After another side bar, the court allowed the State to ask Johnson, “you have been convicted of a burglary before, haven’t you?” We find this to be reversible error. Under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2001), a party may attack the credibility of a witness by introducing evidence of a prior felony conviction. The general rule for impeachment by prior convictions is that the State is restricted to asking a witness if he or she has previously been convicted of a crime, and if so, the number of times. Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784 (Fla.1992). An exception exists, however, when the witness attempts to mislead the jury about his prior convictions. In those circumstances, the State is entitled to inquire further about the prior convictions to dispel any false impression that may have been given. McCrae v. State, 395 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1980).
Johnson’s testimony, however, does not fall under this exception. First, Johnson’s testimony about “cutting checks” was not false or misleading. Second, Johnson’s statement did not suggest that he had not committed a burglary. Therefore, it was error for the trial court to allow the prosecutor to inquire into Johnson’s prior convictions for burglary. Livingston v. State, 682 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
This error cannot be deemed harmless. Because Johnson was on trial for burglary, and because the prior convictions could have influenced the jury’s decision, the error is reversible. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernando Garcia v. State, 21 So. 3d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…estify was a mutually agreed-upon trial strategy directly related to the independent action defense. Cross-examination of the defendant’s criminal past would have been limited to the number of the defendant’s prior convictions. See Johnson v. State, 923 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). However, even this limited information would have tarnished defense counsel’s portrayal of the defendant as an unsuspecting driver unwillingly drawn into his passenger’s criminal conduct. Thus, defense counsel’s strategic decisio…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Konstantinos X. Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1992)
- McCRAE v. State, 395 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1980)
- Livingston v. State, 682 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)