DENISE HARVEY, 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.
The Fourth District affirmed Harvey's conviction for unlawful sexual activity with a minor, holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence of the victim's allegedly false prior sexual accusation against a third party because such evidence does not qualify for impeachment under Florida's evidence code.
The trial court did not err in excluding evidence that the victim had falsely accused another adult of sexual intercourse because prior acts of misconduct not resulting in conviction for a crime of dishonesty or false statement do not qualify for witness impeachment under Florida law.
[1] Prior acts of misconduct not resulting in conviction for a crime punishable by more than one year in prison or involving dishonesty or false statement are not admissible…
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 intelligenceDenise Harvey was convicted of five counts of unlawful sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age in violation of Florida Statute § 794.05(1)…
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 Crimes Involving False Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant was convicted of five counts of unlawful sexual activity by a person 24 years of age or older with a person 16 or 17 years of age. § 794.05(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). She raises six arguments on appeal. We affirm on all arguments and comment briefly on one of the arguments.
We hold the trial court did not err in excluding evidence that, on a separate occasion, the victim allegedly falsely claimed he had sexual intercourse with an adult woman other than the defendant. We find this case is on point with Pantoja v. State, 990 So.2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). In Pantoja, the first district held that the trial court properly excluded a molestation victim’s allegedly false prior accusation of molestation against her uncle, who was not the defendant in the case. Id. at 628-29. The first district reasoned that the evidence code does not provide for impeachment of a witness by evidence of prior acts of misconduct not resulting in conviction for a crime punishable by more than one year in prison or a crime that involves dishonesty or a false statement. Id. at 629-30. The first district certified conflict with Jaggers v. State, 536 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), where the second district reached a contrary holding. Pantoja, 990 So.2d at 628. Our supreme court has granted review of Pantoja. Pantoja v. State, 13 So.3d 468 (Fla.2009). Because we follow Pantoja, we also certify conflict with Joggers.
Ajfirmed.
POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jaggers v. State, 536 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Pantoja v. State, 990 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)