KENYON HARRISON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Harrison's petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is granted. His appellate counsel failed to raise a constitutional confrontation clause issue on direct appeal—specifically, the trial court's ruling excluding evidence of a key State witness's juvenile probationary status for impeachment purposes, which violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine the witness for bias.
Appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise this constitutional confrontation clause issue. The trial court's exclusion of evidence of the witness's juvenile adjudication and probationary status violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine for bias, as established in Davis v. Alaska.
[1] A defendant's constitutional right to effective cross-examination of a witness for bias, prejudice, or ulterior motives may outweigh the state's interest in protecting th…
[2] Appellate counsel's failure to raise a constitutional issue regarding the inadmissibility of evidence of a state witness's probationary status for impeachment purposes co…
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“The State's policy interest in protecting the confidentiality of a juvenile offender's record cannot require yielding of so vital a constitutional right as the effective cross-examination for bias of an adverse witness.”
Establishes that the State's confidentiality interest in juvenile records must yield to a defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation right
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarrison was convicted of sale of cannabis within 1,000 feet of a school and possession of cannabis with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a school.…
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 Right To Cross-Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
Harrison has filed a petition alleging that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise as an issue on direct appeal the trial court’s ruling that evidence of a State witness’ probationary status as a juvenile offender was inadmissible for cross-examination and impeachment purposes. We grant the petition.
After a jury trial, Harrison was convicted of 1) sale of cannabis within 1,000 feet of a school; and 2) possession of cannabis with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a school. Those convictions were per curiam affirmed on appeal. See Harrison v. State, 982 So.2d 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
One of the State’s primary witnesses at trial was a juvenile, M.J. She testified to her alleged purchase of cannabis from Harrison. Prior to her testimony, the State successfully moved to prohibit defense counsel from attempting to impeach M.J. with evidence of a prior juvenile adjudication and the fact that she was still on juvenile probation. In granting the State’s motion in limine, the trial court relied on section 90.610(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), which provides that evidence of juvenile adjudications are inadmissible for purposes of attacking the credibility of a witness.1
While the State has an interest in protecting the confidentiality of a juvenile offender’s record, the United States Supreme Court has held that this interest must give way to a defendant’s right to cross-examine on matters revealing possible biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives *1231as they may relate directly to issues or personalities in the case at hand. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316-17, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). As the Court explained:
The State’s policy interest in protecting the confidentiality of a juvenile offender’s record cannot require yielding of so vital a constitutional right as the effective cross-examination for bias of an adverse witness. The State could have protected [the witness] from exposure of his juvenile adjudication in these circumstances by refraining from using him to make out its case; the State cannot, consistent with the right of confrontation, require the [defendant] to bear the full burden of vindicating the State’s interest in the secrecy of juvenile criminal records.
Appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise this constitutional issue. We instruct the trial court, within thirty days of the mandate in this case, to appoint an appellate attorney to file a brief limited to this issue. After appointment, appellate counsel shall promptly file a new notice of appeal referencing this opinion. See generally Barnes v. State, 993 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
Petition GRANTED.
ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974)
- Barnes v. State, 993 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)