RONALD W. MATLOCK, 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.
Ronald Matlock was convicted by jury of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree following a confrontation with Tarpon Springs police officers. He appeals arguing the state improperly injected evidence of narcotic involvement to attack his character and that the prosecution improperly alluded to his failure to testify. The appellate court affirmed his conviction, finding the evidence admissible and the prosecutor's comments not prejudicial.
The court held that evidence of narcotic involvement was properly admitted during cross-examination as it was relevant to show motive, bias, and to rebut the defense theory that officers were aggressors, and that the prosecutor's comments, while perhaps carelessly worded, did not constitute prejudicial error regarding appellant's failure to testify.
[1] Evidence of prior difficulties involving narcotics may be admissible to corroborate animosity, establish motive for assault, and show possible bias or prejudice of a witn…
[2] Evidence tending to rebut a defense theory that officers were aggressors may be admissible to show the opposite was true.
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“the issue of narcotic involvement was injected into the case within the scope of proper cross-examination of a defense witness and tended both to corroborate animosity, thus motive for the assault, by confirming prior difficulties involving narcotics which one of the defendants had with one of the officers assaulted, and to show possible bias or prejudice on the part of the witness”
Establishes the court's rationale for finding the disputed narcotic evidence admissible and relevant to multiple issues in the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMatlock was charged with assaulting a police officer with intent to commit murder and was jointly tried with others charged with lesser felonious assa…
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 Prosecutorial Comment On Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*490] PER CURIAM.
Appellant Matlock was charged with assaulting a police officer with intent to commit murder and was jointly tried with others who were charged with lesser degrees of felonious assault. The charges all arose out of a fracas with two Tarpon Springs police officers. Matlock appeals from a judgment and sentence imposed after a jury finding of guilt as to him of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree.
At first blush this case gave us pause, especially because of the able arguments and brief of counsel for appellant. The points raised are that the state improperly injected the issue of likely narcotic involvement by appellant, thus improperly attacking the character of appellant which had not been put in evidence, and, secondly, that the prosecuting attorney improperly, though indirectly, alluded to the failure of appellant to take the stand and testify. Upon a meticulous reading of the entire record, however, we have concluded that the issue of narcotic involvement was injected into the case within the scope of proper cross-examination of a defense witness and tended both to corroborate animosity, thus motive for the assault, by confirming prior difficulties involving narcotics which one of the defendants had with one of the officers assaulted, and to show possible bias or prejudice on the part of the witness who also had a prior unhappy experience with that officer on the same occasion. At the same time, such testimony tended to rebut a principal defense theory that the officers were the aggressors in the fracas because of their animosity toward today’s r youth in general, and to one or more of the co-defendants in particular, by showing that it was really the other way around. In this regard the case differs from the recent decision of our sister court in the Fourth District in Machara v. State1 relied upon by appellant.
As to . the alleged improper comments of the prosecution in summation, we have concluded that while perhaps they could have been more carefully worded they did not constitute a sufficient direct or indirect allusion to the failure of appellant to testify as to constitute prejudicial error. Suffice it to say, that while perhaps appellant did not have a perfect trial, to which he is indeed not entitled, he had an extremely fair one. He can neither expect nor demand more.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and they are, hereby affirmed.
LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur. . (Fla.App.1973), 272 So. 2d 870.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cohen v. State, 581 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…09 S.Ct. 183, 102 L.Ed.2d 153 (1988); Wells v. State, 492 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 501 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1986); Maugeri v. State, 460 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Warren v. State, 443 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Matlock v. State, 284 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 293 So. 2d 715 (Fla.1974). While evidence of motive is not necessary in order to obtain a conviction, it is admissible when it is available and would help the jury understand the other evidence presented, even thou…
-
Matlock v. State, 293 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1974)…Certiorari denied. 284 So. 2d 489. ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
-
Cruz v. State, 593 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…efendant’s character — especially in view of its clear admissibility in attacking the above witness’ credibility. Randolph v. State, 463 So. 2d 186, 189 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 907, 105 S.Ct. 3533, 87 L.Ed.2d 656 (1985); Matlock v. State, 284 So. 2d 489 (Fla.2d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 293 So. 2d 715 (Fla.1974); see § 90.104(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). Second, the state concedes, and we agree, that the defendant’s conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony cannot stand. Ba…
Authorities Cited
- MacHara v. State, 272 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)