RAKIM J. WATSON
v.
STATE
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.
Evidence was sufficient to support Watson's convictions for aggravated battery and firearm offenses despite witness inconsistencies, and the trial court's inadvertent disclosure of Watson's prior conviction was harmless error where Watson himself testified about his felony status.
[1] A trial court's inadvertent disclosure of a defendant's prior conviction during preliminary jury instructions is harmless error where the defendant subsequently testifies…
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 intelligence“it is within the jury's purview to make credibility determinations among conflicting testimony”
Court explaining that identity of the shooter was a question for the jury to resolve
Watson was charged with four counts of principal aggravated battery, discharging a firearm from a vehicle, and possession of a firearm by a convicted …
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 Discharging A Firearm From A Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
RAKIM J. WATSON,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-4099
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 7, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Terence R. Perkins, Judge.
Kimberly Nolen Hopkins, Tampa, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Rakim Watson appeals his convictions for charges stemming from a drive-by shooting in which several individuals were wounded.1 He argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish his identity as the shooter and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial made when the court, in its preliminary instructions, inadvertently informed the jury that Watson had a prior conviction. We affirm. Many of the individuals in this case have previously been involved with the criminal justice system. At trial, there were inconsistencies among the witnesses’ accounts and in prior witness statements. While the identities of the shooters were disputed, it was undisputed that shots were fired from a vehicle Watson was in and several people were injured. Furthermore, at least one victim testified that Watson fired shots from the vehicle. Thus, there was sufficient evidence, despite the inconsistencies, to support Watson’s convictions. Cf. Slater v. State, 769 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Ultimately, it is within the jury’s purview to make credibility determinations among conflicting testimony. Id. at 512 (“The validity of the [victim] identification testimony was for the jury.”); see also Bradshaw v. State, 744 So. 2d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (explaining that evidence regarding defendant’s “identity as the shooter was a question for the jury”). Further, we find the trial court’s error in informing the jury that Watson had a prior conviction to be harmless under the circumstances of this case. During the preliminary instructions, the court read the charges Watson faced, including, “possession of a firearm by a convicted in-state—.”2 Watson moved for a mistrial, and the court reserved ruling. However, Watson later chose to testify and freely stated that he had previously been convicted of several felonies. Thus, Watson himself placed his status as a convicted felon before the jury, rendering the court’s inadvertent disclosure harmless. Cf. Wyatt v. State, 641 So. 2d 1336, 1338 (Fla. 1994) (finding trial court’s mention of defendant’s prior conviction during voir dire harmless where defendant later testified that he was a convicted felon).
AFFIRMED.
COHEN, C.J., WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wyatt v. State, 641 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1994)
- Bradshaw v. State, 744 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Slater v. State, 769 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)