JOHN RICHARD JENKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 appellate court reversed a conviction for attempted rape, finding that the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant and prejudicial statements made by the defendant while in custody.
The trial court erred in admitting the defendant's statements into evidence.
“Even though these statements might have been voluntarily made, they were completely immaterial and irrelevant to the issue being tried, and would certainly have tended to besmirch the character and demeanor of the defendant, possibly prejudicing the trier of the fact and could only have been introduced for this purpose, said statements being wholly irrelevant to the State s case.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for finding the admitted statements improper.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, John Richard Jenkins, was tried non-jury and convicted of attempted rape. During the trial, the judge allowed into evidence statements …
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 Character Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, defendant in the trial court, was tried non-jury and adjudicated guilty of attempted rape, and sentenced to three years in the State Prison. He has perfected this appeal and preserved for review, among other things, the propriety of the trial judge permitting into evidence certain statements made by the defendant during the trial while in the custody of law enforcement officers, to the effect that he would bet them $100.00 that he would not be convicted and if he was he would be placed on probation.
Even though these statements might have been voluntarily made, they were completely immaterial and irrelevant to the issue being tried, and would certainly have tended to besmirch the character and demeanor of the defendant, possibly prejudicing the trier of the fact and could only have been introduced for this purpose, said statements being wholly irrelevant to the State s case. See: Watkins v. State, 69 Fla. 355, 68 So. 176; Wolf v. State, 72 Fla. 572, 73 So. 740; Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602.
Therefore, the conviction and final judgment here under review is hereby reversed, and this cause remanded to the trial court for the purpose of a new trial.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simmons v. Baptist Hosp. OF Miami, Inc., 454 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ere so essential to the plaintiff’s case, and in so doing, denied the plaintiff the substance of a fair trial below. See Charlotte Harbor & N. Ry. Co. v. Truette, 81 Fla. 152, 159, 87 So. 427, 429 (1921) (syllabus by court, no. 3); Jenkins v. State, 177 So. 2d 756, 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Moreover, we are persuaded that the belated curative instruction as to the arson reference, apparently agreed to by both parties and given the day after the offending testimony was elicited, neither cured the sinister nature…
-
Dillman v. State, 411 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ing trial, were well taken. The fact that these statements were made by the defendant does not, of course, entitle them to admission. See, e.g., Paul v. State, 340 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 953 (Fla.1977); Jenkins v. State, 177 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Minturn v. State, 136 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Hooper v. State, 115 So. 2d 769 (Fla.3d DCA 1959). . The State’s witness (Wake) related a conversation between the defendant and one Kiever (who was charged, but not tried, wi…
-
Owens v. State, 273 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…case was not a strong one, and it is highly unlikely that the jury would have found appellant guilty of second degree murder as charged without discrediting his testimony. The prejudicial effect of the error is clear. Jenkins v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 756. The interest of justice will be best served by granting appellant a new trial. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to grant appellant a new trial. Reversed and remanded. WALDEN, CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Wolf v. State, 72 Fla. 572 (Fla. 1917)
- Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581 (Fla. 1920)
- Gustave Harold Watkins v. State, 69 Fla. 355 (Fla. 1915)