PAUL VALDELL HOUSTON, 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.
Paul Houston appeals his robbery conviction and 40-year sentence, arguing the trial court erred by allowing cross-examination about his prior convictions without the State introducing records to support questions about more than seven convictions. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding the cross-examination improper but harmless error given the weight of evidence and the bench trial format.
The cross-examination was improper and violated Florida law, but constituted harmless error. The prosecutor had the right to cross-examine about specific crimes to refresh Houston's memory, but upon failing to obtain admissions to more than seven convictions, was obligated to produce records of additional convictions rather than continue questioning without such evidentiary support.
[1] A prosecutor may cross-examine a defendant about prior convictions to refresh their memory, but must introduce evidence of those convictions if the defendant does not adm…
[2] Cross-examination of a defendant regarding prior convictions is improper if the prosecutor cannot produce evidence of those convictions when the defendant fails to admit…
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“There was no legal basis for the prosecutor to question appellant as to specific crimes unless he could produce the record of more than seven convictions should appellant not admit to more than seven.”
Establishes the rule that prosecutors must have evidentiary support (records) for questioning about prior convictions beyond what the defendant admits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHouston was tried for robbery before a judge without a jury after waiving his jury trial right. During cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Houston…
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 Admissibility Of Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant appeals his conviction of robbery by the trial court, jury trial having been waived and also appeals his 40 year sentence. He contends that the court erred in permitting the state to cross-examine as to the number and type of crimes of which he had previously been convicted, the state not having placed in evidence the record of his previous convictions.
On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked appellant if he had ever been convicted of a crime, and he replied in the affirmative. He was then asked how many times, and he replied, “Twice.” He was then asked if he could have been convicted more than two times, and he answered, “Yes.” He was then asked how many times he had been convicted of a crime, and he replied, “Oh, about six or seven times.” He was then asked, “Could it be more than six or seven?” He responded, “Yes, it could be more.” The prosecutor then asked, “Do you have another more accurate number than six or seven?” to which he replied, “No.” The prosecutor then proceeded to question him as to specific crimes to refresh his memory as to the number of crimes he had committed, and he admitted to as many as seven convictions for the specific crimes of forgery, uttering, grand larceny, petit larceny and carrying a concealed weapon. No more than seven convictions were established from the questioning as to specifically named crimes and the prosecutor then dropped the questioning and did not subsequently put in evidence the record of any previous convictions.
While the prosecutor had the right to cross-examine appellant as to specific crimes in an attempt to refresh his memory as to more than seven convictions, appellant having no clear recollection as to the number of convictions [Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768, 119 So. 380 (1928)], upon failing to obtain admissions to more than the seven, it was the prosecutor’s obligation to then put in evidence the records of more than seven convictions. There was no legal basis for the prosecutor to question appellant as to specific crimes unless he could produce the record of more than seven convictions should appellant not admit to more than seven. The cross-examination was, therefore, improper and in violation of § 90.08, Florida Statutes (1975). When we consider, however, the weight of the evidence as to appellant’s guilt, together with the fact that the trial was before a judge without a jury, it is apparent that the foregoing error did not injuriously affect the substantial rights of appellant and was harmless error. See § 59.041 and 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975), and Cunningham v. State, 239 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1 DCA 1970).
We have also considered appellant’s remaining point and find it to be without merit. See Castle v. State, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1976).
AFFIRMED.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dukes v. State, 356 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…the defendant. As the First District Court of Appeal said in Thorpe v. State, 350 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977): “ . . . But the prosecutor who so cross-examines should be prepared to prove the facts concerning prior convictions. Houston v. State, 337 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). And when the prosecutor frames his questions to suggest as a fact that the accused was previously convicted of a certain offense, and the inference is false, the trial court must at least emphatically charge the jury to dispel t…
-
Virgilio Blasco v. State, 419 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…form of the prosecutor’s question was improper. . . . Id. at 439. See also McClellan v. State, 417 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, however, reversal is not appropriate. Houston v. State, 337 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Lockwood v. State, 107 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 111 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1959). Affirmed.…
-
Thorpe v. State, 350 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…the number of his prior convictions invites inquiry in any form reasonably calculated to call his attention to the facts. But the prosecutor who so cross-examines should be prepared to prove the facts concerning prior convictions. Houston v. State, 337 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). And when the prosecutor frames his questions to suggest as a fact that the accused was previously convicted of a certain offense, and the inference is false, the trial court must at least emphatically charge the jury to dispel t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768 (Fla. 1928)
- Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976)
- Cunningham v. State, 239 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)