JAMES BURDINE ROLLE, 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.
Defendant Rolle was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 25 years. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's limitation of testimony regarding the victim's prior acts of violence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that while specific prior acts of violence known to the defendant are admissible to show the reasonableness of his fear in self-defense, they cannot be used merely to prove the victim's violent character, which must instead be shown through reputation evidence.
The trial court properly limited defendant's testimony. Specific prior acts of violence by the victim are admissible only to prove the reasonableness of the defendant's fear at the time of the alleged homicide, not to prove the victim's violent and dangerous character. The victim's character must be shown through general reputation evidence. The trial court correctly excluded the question about how many times the defendant saw the victim rob people, but properly allowed testimony about specific robberies that provided a predicate for the defendant's fear.
[1] Evidence of specific prior acts of violence by the deceased, known to the defendant at the time of the slaying, may be admissible to prove the reasonableness of the defen…
[2] Evidence of specific prior acts of violence by the deceased is not admissible to show proof of the deceased's violent and dangerous character; such character is shown by…
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“While evidence of specific prior acts of violence by the deceased known to the defendant at the time of the slaying may be admissible to prove the reasonableness of the defendant's fear at the time of the alleged homicide, evidence of such specific acts of violence is not admissible to show proof of the deceased's violent and dangerous character which is shown by his general reputation in the community”
Establishes the fundamental distinction between admissible use of specific acts (for reasonableness of fear) versus inadmissible use (for character proof)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Rolle was indicted for first-degree murder, tried by jury, and convicted of second-degree murder. He was sentenced to 25 years in the state …
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
[*168] PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was indicted, for murder in the first degree, tried by jury, found guilty of murder in the second degree and sentenced to 25 years in the state penitentiary.
Appellant first urges as error the trial court’s limitation of the scope of defendant’s testimony concerning the prior acts of violence committed by the victim.
The only issue at the trial was that of self-defense and defense counsel attempted to elicit from the defendant who testified on his own behalf evidence to show that the victim was a violent person and the defendant was in apprehension of him.
While evidence of specific prior acts of violence by the deceased known to the defendant at the time of the slaying may be admissible to prove the reasonableness of the defendant’s fear at the time of the alleged homicide, evidence of such specific acts of violence is not admissible to show proof of the deceased’s violent and dangerous character which is shown by his general reputation in the community, i. e. what is reported or understood to be the community’s estimate of the person’s character. See Horne v. State, Fla.App.1959, 116 So. 2d 654; Rafuse v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 71; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 243; Henry v. State, Fla.App.1974, 290 So. 2d 73.
As to the victim’s character, defendant was permitted to testify that the victim was known to be a dope addict and robber. However, the court did strike defense counsel’s question to the defendant of how many occasions the defendant saw the victim rob anyone. This question was an attempt to elicit specific acts and hence the trial judge was eminently correct in limiting the scope of defendant’s testimony with respect thereto.
As to defendant’s testimony concerning the reasonableness of defendant’s fear at the time of the homicide, defendant was permitted to testify that the deceased had robbed him and threatened his family with harm if they were to inform the police. A proper predicate being laid, defendant then properly was allowed to further testify about a robbery which he had observed the deceased commit three weeks prior to the homicide. See Williams v. State, supra. Therefore, we conclude that this point of appellant is without merit.
We also considered appellant’s second point on appeal and find it to be lacking in merit. See Gilford v. State, Fla.1975, 313 So. 2d 729 (Released April 9, 1975).
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campos v. State, 366 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…lf-defense, evidence of the specific violent acts of the deceased is admissible, when offered in support of a defense of self defense, for the limited purpose of illustrating the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the incident. Rolle v. State, 314 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Williams v. State, 252 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Sub judice, the defense had showed overt acts on the part of the deceased at or near the time of the slaying, i. e. chasing appellant by car, threatening appellant’s life, al…
-
Martinez v. Louie L. Wainwright, 621 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1980)…s testimony in which he stated that deceased had informed him of his criminal past before the shooting. If defendant was aware of the deceased’s criminal record, specific acts of misconduct by the deceased would have been admissible. Rolle v. State, 314 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3rd Dist.Ct.App.1975). If the rap sheet were held to be hearsay and not admissible to prove the prior convictions, it at least would have provided the defense the ability to contact the appropriate penal facilities to acquire an official recor…
Authorities Cited
- Gilford v. State, 313 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1975)
- Noble Williams v. State, 252 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Cos. v. Robert M. Salisbury et ux., 290 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Rafuse v. State, 215 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Hewitt v. Venable, 116 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Horne v. State, 116 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)