FRANK WILSON WHITEHEAD, 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.
Frank Whitehead appeals his second-degree murder conviction, challenging the trial court's admission of evidence regarding his prior arrests and criminal history unrelated to the knife-related charges. The appellate court found the evidence inadmissible and prejudicial, reversing the conviction.
The trial court committed reversible error in allowing cross-examination about irrelevant crimes and in admitting the mugshots. When a defendant testifies, he may be questioned only about prior convictions, and if he admits them, only as to how many times—but the specific crimes cannot be named. The admission of mugshots was particularly prejudicial error.
[1] Evidence of prior arrests, unrelated to the crime charged, is inadmissible when the defendant testifies and is questioned about them on cross-examination.
[2] A defendant who testifies in his own behalf may be questioned about prior convictions, but the inquiry must stop after the number of convictions is admitted or proven.
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“Evidence of another and distinct crime committed by a defendant, in no way relevant or connected by circumstances with the one for which he is being tried, is inadmissible.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that prior unrelated crimes are inadmissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhitehead was charged with stabbing a victim with a knife, inflicting fatal wounds. He testified in his own defense, stating he had never carried a kn…
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 Evidence Of Prior Crimes cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, adjudged guilty and sentenced to twenty years in the state penitentiary.
Appellant was accused of stabbing the victim with a knife and inflicting mortal wounds. During the trial appellant took the stand in his own behalf and stated, among other things, that he had never carried a knife in his life until two days prior to the incident involved in this case. On cross-examination, over objection of defense counsel, the trial court permitted the prosecuting attorney to question him as to numerous prior arrests, none of which concerned assault with a knife or carrying a knife. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial but this motion was denied.
In rebuttal the prosecuting attorney presented a deputy sheriff who, over defense counsel’s objection, proceeded to testify as to appellant’s prior arrest record with submission into evidence of each “mug shot” taken at the prior arrests of appellant, including the offense for which appellant was on trial. Again, defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial was denied.
Evidence of another and distinct crime committed by a defendant, in no way relevant or connected by circumstances with the one for which he is being tried, is inadmissible. Watson v. Campbell, Fla.1954, 55 So.2d 540. See Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654, and the many subsequent cases dealing with the subject.
When a defendant testifies on his own behalf, he may be asked if he had ever been convicted of a crime. F.S., § 90.08 F.S.A. If he admits such conviction, he may be asked how many times he had been convicted. Lockwood v. State, Fla.App.1959, 107 So.2d 770. At that point the inquiry must stop. If he denies the conviction, the opposing party may produce the record of conviction. In any event the matter may not be pursued to the point of naming the crime when the defendant admits it. Mead v. State, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 773. See Ailer v. State, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 348.
We hold that the lower court committed reversible error in permitting the prosecuting attorney, over objection, to question appellant as to irrelevant crimes, and in denying appellant’s motion for mistrial. Cf. Warren v. State, Fla.1972, 270 So.2d 8.
*101The admission into evidence of the “mug shots” over objection was error. Even reference to “mug shots” in the prosecution of a defendant has been held to be error. Loftin v. State, Fla.1973, 273 So.2d 70, and cases cited. Such error was highly prejudicial to appellant in this case. Cf. Loftin, supra; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 428; Anderson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 704; and Gagnon v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 337.
Appellant’s second point on appeal has been considered and under the facts of this case is found to be without merit.
The judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Adler v. Copa Corp., 212 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Mead v. State, 86 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1956)
- Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1973)
- Lockwood v. State, 107 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Alberta E. Ailer v. State, 114 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Anderson v. State, 230 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Watson v. Campbell, 55 So.2d 540 (Fla. 1951)
- Williams v. State, 233 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Warren v. State, 270 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1972)