AARON WASHINGTON, 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.
Aaron Washington appeals his conviction for carjacking with a firearm and battery, challenging the trial court's exclusion of evidence that the victim had filed a false police report in an unrelated matter. The Fourth District affirms, holding that credibility may only be impeached by prior convictions for crimes involving dishonesty, not by proof of specific acts of misconduct absent a criminal conviction.
The trial court did not err in excluding the false police report evidence because under Florida law and the Florida Rules of Evidence, a witness's credibility may only be impeached by prior convictions for crimes involving dishonesty or false statements, not by proof of specific acts of misconduct that did not result in a criminal conviction.
[1] A witness's credibility may only be impeached by convictions of crimes involving dishonesty or false statements.
[2] Credibility may not be attacked by proof that a witness committed specific acts of misconduct which did not end in a criminal conviction.
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“A witness' credibility may only be impeached "by convictions of crimes involving dishonesty or false statements."”
Establishes the standard for impeachment under Florida law; credibility attacks are limited to 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 intelligenceWashington was charged with carjacking with a firearm and aggravated battery after he took drugs from a drug dealer without paying, struck the victim …
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 Carjacking With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
MAY, J.
The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for carjacking with a firearm and battery. He argues, among other things, that the-trial court erred in denying him the ability to question the victim about filing a false police report in an unrelated matter. We disagree and affirm.
The defendant was charged with carjacking with a firearm and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The testimony revealed that the victim was a drug-dealer. During a deal between the victim and the defendant, the defendant took the drugs without paying for them, struck the victim repeatedly with a firearm, and with the help of two accomplices extracted him from his automobile, and stole it. When the victim reported the crime, not surprisingly, certain details about the drug deal were omitted.
In an unrelated incident, the victim lent his car to a friend, who was involved in a hit-and-run accident while driving the borrowed car. The victim filed a false police report that the car had been stolen.
At trial, the State moved to exclude evidence of the unrelated false police report. The court granted the motion. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charges of carjacking with a firearm and the lesser-included offense of simple battery.
We review trial court decisions on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion, “limited by the rules of evidence.” Nardone v. State, 798 So. 2d 870, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A witness’ credibility may only be impeached “by convictions of crimes involving dishonesty or false statements.” Jackson v. State, 545 So. 2d 260, 264 (Fla.1989). “[Credibility may not be attacked by proof that a witness committed specific acts of misconduct which did not end in a criminal conviction.” Roebuck v. State, 953 So. 2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (emphasis added).
Here, the defendant argues the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to exclude reference to the false police report filed by the victim in the unrelated incident. However, both the rules of evidence and case law support the trial court’s decision. See, e.g., § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2006); Jackson, 545 So. 2d at 264. “The plain language of section 90.610, Florida Statutes, authorizes impeachment with only prior convictions; there is no exception written into or considered by the statute.” Roebuck, 953 So. 2d at 43 (emphasis in original). We therefore find no error in the trial court’s exclusion of the false police report.
We note that the Second District Court of Appeal has created a “false reporting exception” to that general rule. See Jaggers v. State, 536 So. 2d 321, 327-28 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1988) and Cliburn v. State, 710 So. 2d 669, 670 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1998). The First District recently disagreed with those decisions and certified conflict with the Second District in Roebuck. We join the First District in adhering to the rules of evidence and respectfully declining to adopt the Second District’s “false reporting exception.”1
We find no merit in the other issue raised and affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.
Affirmed.
POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur. . The Supreme Court of Florida initially accepted jurisdiction in Roebuck v. State, 959 So. 2d 717 (Fla.2007), but subsequently dismissed the appeal, concluding that Roebuck is not in conflict with Jaggers and Cliburn and that jurisdiction should be discharged. 982 So. 2d 683 (Fla.2008).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlisle v. State, 137 So. 3d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…Carlisle from cross-examining the victim regarding her recantation of the 2005 abuse allegations. The state argued the false accusation was inadmissible under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2007), and this court’s decision in Washington v. State, 985 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).2 At a hearing on the motion, the victim testified she recanted the 2005 allegations because her adoptive mother ostracized the victim and isolated her from her siblings3 after she made the allegations. Because of the negative at…
-
Kovaleski v. State, 1 So. 3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…essary under these facts, because the record is silent as to whether the minor had ever made such an accusation or withdrawn it. Nor is it clear, under the cases we discuss below, if such evidence would have been admissible. In Washington v. State, 985 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 994 So. 2d 307 (Fla.2008), we held that a victim of a carjacking could not be impeached by evidence that, on an unrelated occasion, the victim had filed a false police report that his car, which- he had actually lent t…
-
Flavio Tomas v. State, 126 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…anguage of section 90.610, Florida Statutes, authorizes impeachment with only prior convictions; there is no exception written into or considered by the statute.” Roebuck v. State, 953 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); see also Washington v. State, 985 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by preventing the introduction of evidence that the victim submitted a false police report). More recently, the Florida Supreme Court in Pantoja v. State, 59 So. 3d 1092…
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
- Nardone v. State, 798 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Jaggers v. State, 536 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Jackson v. State, 545 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1989)
- Cliburn v. State, 710 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- State v. Kettell, 959 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2007)
- Antoine Museau v. State, 953 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Roebuck v. State, 953 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Roebuck v. State, 982 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2008)