ARSELIO GONZALEZ, 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.
Arselio Gonzalez was convicted of carjacking, aggravated fleeing, and trespassing. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's decision to allow impeachment of his exculpatory statements (made to a police officer and introduced through that officer's testimony) using evidence of his four prior felony convictions. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that when a non-testifying defendant introduces his own exculpatory statements through another witness, he runs the risk of having those statements impeached by prior felony convictions.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Gonzalez's four prior felony convictions to impeach his exculpatory statements and in providing a limiting instruction to the jury. A non-testifying defendant who brings out his own exculpatory statements through another witness runs the risk of having those statements impeached by felony convictions.
[1] A non-testifying defendant who elicits their own exculpatory statements through another witness risks having those statements impeached by prior felony convictions.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in admitting a defendant's prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes when the defense has elicited the defendant's own…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A non-testifying defendant who brings out his or her own exculpatory statements through another witness, "runs the risk of having those statements impeached by felony convictions."”
Establishes the core legal principle that a defendant cannot safely introduce exculpatory statements indirectly without exposing them to impeachment by prior convictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGonzalez was arrested following a carjacking and fleeing incident. Officer Grieve testified that during the arrest, Gonzalez made statements including…
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 Exculpatory Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
Gonzalez was convicted of carjacking, aggravated fleeing, and trespassing. We affirm and write solely as to one impeachment issue on appeal. Officer Grieve testified as to his chase of Gonzalez and the co-defendant:
Grieve: As we get out of the car, I drew my weapon out and ordered them to the ground. One of them, Gonzalez it was, got over the fence and was actually trying to conceal himself under the trailer. * # *
State: Did you also have an occasion, at some point while making contact with Mr. Gonzalez, did he make any comments to you about his detention or his arrest?
Grieve: Yeah. When me and Officer Wollard took him from underneath the trailer, he did make a comment saying, wow, you guys are fast.
No objection was made at that point. During the cross-examination of Grieve, defense counsel asked him what else Gonzalez had said, and Grieve read the following part of his deposition: “I do not want to say cocky. Like, his first statements were wow, you guys are fast, like that. And then later on at the hospital, he was insistent that we didn’t have the right people and I had nothing to do with it, it was basically what he was saying.”
Based on the cross-examination, the state sought to have the jury instructed as to Gonzalez’s four prior felony convictions. The court allowed the impeachment. The court also instructed the jury that the information “is to be utilized only by you in consideration of determining the credibility of the statements that are attributable to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Gonzalez only. Understand that it has nothing to do with any other factor in this case.”
A non-testifying defendant who brings out his or her own exculpatory statements through another witness, “runs the risk of having those statements impeached by felony convictions.” Kelly v. State, 857 So. 2d 949, 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citation omitted). See also Fisher v. State, 924 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)(citing Huggins v. State, 889 So. 2d 743 (Fla.2004)); Llanos v. State, 770 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Werley v. State, 814 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
In this case, because the defense elicited Gonzalez’s own statement, intended to be exculpatory, through Grieve, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Gonzalez’s past felony convictions and in giving a limiting instruction as to same.
As to all other issues, we also find no reversible error or abuse of discretion.
TAYLOR, J. and COLBATH, JEFFREY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amoundo James Terrence Mathis v. State, 135 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…d Freeman, the Fourth District has held that “[a] non-testifying defendant who brings out his or her own exculpatory statements through another witness, ‘runs the risk of having those statements impeached by felony convictions.’ ” Gonzalez v. State, 948 So. 2d 877, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Kelly v. State, 857 So. 2d 949, 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). In Gonzalez, the Fourth District found no abuse of discretion where the trial court instructed the jury as to the appellant’s prior felony convictions and fu…
-
Freeman v. State, 74 So. 3d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…o impeach exculpatory hearsay statements of a defendant who does not testify but gets the statements into evidence through another witness. See Huggins v. State, 889 So. 2d 743, 756 (Fla.2004); Werley, 814 So. 2d at 1163. See also Gonzalez v. State, 948 So. 2d 877, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Fisher v. State, 924 So. 2d 914, 916-17 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). In Werley, we approved admission of the appellant’s six prior felony convictions to impeach his exculpatory hearsay statements. The appellant was on trial for ag…
-
Hampton v. State, 4 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…lant acted in self-defense. As we cautioned in Gonzalez v. State, “a non-testifying defendant who brings out his or her own exculpatory statements through another witness, ‘runs the risk of having those statements impeached by felony convictions.’ ” 948 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Kelly v. State, 857 So. 2d 949, 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). We affirm appellant’s conviction. However, because the trial court did not enter a written order upon its oral finding that the previously committed appellant w…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Huggins v. State, 889 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2004)
- Worland v. State, 814 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Kelly v. State, 857 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Arius J. Llanos v. State, 770 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Fisher v. State, 924 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)