DAVID R. BLUE, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a capital sexual battery conviction because the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of the alleged victim regarding her prior false allegations, violating the defendant's constitutional right to expose witness bias and credibility issues.
A defendant has a constitutional right to cross-examine a witness about prior false allegations to expose bias or improper motive, even beyond the scope of direct examination.
[1] A defendant's constitutional right to cross-examine a witness regarding prior false allegations to expose bias or improper motive is not limited by the scope of the prose…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of capital sexual battery. During cross-examination, defense counsel sought to question the alleged victim about previous …
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 Capital Sexual Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant challenges his conviction for capital sexual battery, contending that his cross-examination of the alleged victim was improperly limited by the trial court. During cross-examination, defense counsel attempted to question the witness about previous statements she had made which would have provided a basis for defense counsel to argue to the jury that the witness had made false allegations against the appellant in the past, and that her present testimony should therefore not be accepted as true. The trial court disallowed the line of questioning, finding it to be outside the scope of the state’s direct examination.
A defendant has a constitutional right to pursue a full cross-examination to expose a witness’s bias or improper motive in testifying against the defendant, even when the questioning goes outside the scope of the prosecutor’s direct examination. See Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 109 S.Ct. 480, 102 L.Ed.2d 513 (1988); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Washington v. State, 737 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Because the attempted cross-examination related to the witness’s credibility, the appellant’s constitutionally protected right to a full cross-examination was denied. Accordingly, as we cannot say that this error was harmless, the appellant’s conviction is reversed and the case is remanded.
BARFIELD, ALLEN, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974)
- Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1988)
- Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)