PAUL F. HENDRICK, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILLIP J. STRAZZULLA, FRANK STRAZZULLA AND DOMINIC STRAZZULLA, COPARTNERS, D/B/A STRAZZULLA BROTHERS COMPANY, AND JUAN FLORES, APPELLEES
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.
In this truck collision negligence case, the court affirmed the jury verdict for the defendant-driver Flores, rejecting plaintiff-appellant Hendrick's argument that the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of Flores' prior conviction for reckless driving stemming from the same accident. The exclusion was proper because the evidence was inadmissible as it derived from the very incident at issue in the trial.
The trial judge properly excluded the evidence of Flores' prior reckless driving conviction because such evidence was inadmissible as it was derived from and concerned Flores' participation in the very accident giving rise to the negligence trial. Although the judge's stated rationale (that the crime did not involve moral turpitude) was arguably incorrect, the exclusion was correct on the independent ground of inadmissibility.
“While we realize that a certified copy of the judgment in the criminal proceedings in which the defendant was convicted of reckless driving was not offered in the instant proceeding, as was the case in Stevens v. Duke, supra, the defendant was compelled by reason of the rulings of the trial court, to supply the identical information that would have been furnished by the introduction of the judgment of conviction ; namely, that he had been convicted of reckless driving as the result of the accident.”
Establishes that whether evidence is presented by certified judgment or through witness testimony, the prejudicial effect is the same when derived from the same accident.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Hendrick was driving a truck westbound on State Road 80 near West Palm Beach and attempted to pass defendant Flores' truck. Flores, who was …
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from final judgment after jury verdict in a passing-overtaking truck collision case. Plaintiff-appellant Hendrick drove and owned the passing truck. Defendant-appellee Flores drove the overtaken truck; and defendants-appellees Straz-zulla owned it and also owned a farm where Flores lived and worked.
The collision occurred on State Road 80 in open country at the entrance to the farm, some 14 miles west of West Palm Beach and two miles west of the hamlet of Lox-ahatchee. At this point an unnamed dirt grade road and wooden bridg'e across the Palm Beach Canal connect the defendants Strazzullas’ farm with 80. Both trucks were westbound along 80, Hendrick behind Flores. The collision occurred when Flores, headed for home, attempted a left turn from the main road south into the farm road, just as Hendrick was attempting to pass.
The sufficiency of the evidence on the general issue of negligence is not an issue on this, the appellant and appellees have limited their issues to two principal points of law.
On cross-examination, the defendant truck driver Flores was asked whether he had ever been convicted of a crime. He replied, “No.” Plaintiff sought to impeach him by introducing transcript of his Criminal Court of Record conviction for reckless driving. The Trial Judge rejected this evidence, on the ground that the conviction was not of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Although the Trial Judge rejected the testimony on the authority of Roe v. State, 96 Fla. 723, 119 So. 118, an inspection of the proffered exhibit discloses that it is obviously concerned with Flores’ participation in the accident which gave rise to this trial and hence, was inadmissible. See Stevens, et al. v. Duke et al., Fla., 42 So.2d 361; Moseley v. Ewing, Fla., 79 So.2d 776, 778. In the latter case the Supreme Court speaking through Mr. Justice Sebring said:
“While we realize that a certified copy of the judgment in the criminal proceedings in which the defendant was convicted of reckless driving was not offered in the instant proceeding, as was the case in Stevens v. Duke, supra, the defendant was compelled by reason of the rulings of the trial court, to supply the identical information that would have been furnished by the introduction of the judgment of conviction ; namely, that he had been convicted of reckless driving as the result of the accident. In principle, we can see no material difference between compelling the defendant to make this palpably prejudicial disclosure from the witness stand and allowing the plaintiff to put this clearly inadmissible evidence before the jury by the use of a certified copy of the judgment of conviction.
*591“We hold, therefore, that the admission of the evidence, over the objection of the defendant, constituted reversible error, and that the reasons for ruling the questions immaterial or irrelevant to the issue were so ‘obviously and clearly discernible’ that the general grounds urged by the defendant to the inadmissibility of such evidence were sufficient to require a ruling and to constitute a proper basis for a review of the error.”
It would appear therefore, that had this proffered evidence been admitted by the learned Trial Judge, he would have committed reversible error.
The remaining assignment has been examined and we find no error therein.
Affirmed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1965)…56, was entered by the appellate court on the second appeal of the case to it. On the first appeal, a verdict and judgment for the defendants in a tort action arising out of an automobile collision was affirmed. Hendrick v. Strazzulla, Fla.App.1960, 125 So. 2d 589. This court, however, on direct-conflict certiorari quashed the judgment of affirmance on a point no longer relevant (since the error did not recur on the second trial), and the cause was remanded. Hendrick v. Strazzulla, Fla.1961, 135 So. 2d 1. On…
-
Hendrick v. Strazzulla, 135 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1961)…for a writ of certiorari we are requested to review a decision of the [*2] District Court of Appeal, Second District, because of an alleged conflict with a prior decision of this Court on the same point of law. See Hendrick v. Strazzulla, Fla.App., 125 So. 2d 589. We are called upon to consider a ruling of the trial judge regarding the admissibility of a record of conviction of a crime in order to discredit a witness. Petitioner Hendrick was plaintiff in an action for damages arising out of a collision of…
-
Hendrick v. Strazzulla, 168 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…WHITE, Judge. This case arose'from a collision of motor vehicles, and this appeal marks its second appearance in this court. On the former appeal we affirmed judgment for the defendants. Hendrick v. Strazzulla, Fla.App. 1960, 125 So. 2d 589. On certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida the decision of this court was quashed and the cause was remanded. Hendrick v. Strazzulla, Fla. 1961, 135 So. 2d 1. The sole point determined by the Supreme Court pertained to the admissibility of certa…
Authorities Cited
- Stevens v. Duke, 42 So.2d 361 (Fla. 1949)
- Roe v. State, 96 Fla. 723 (Fla. 1928)
- Moseley v. Ewing, 79 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1955)