HOMER CLIFFORD CLARK, JR., 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.
Clark was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit felony grand larceny and grand larceny from a doctor's office. The Florida appellate court reversed because a police officer improperly testified that Clark had been arrested for heroin sale and possession, which was prejudicial despite the trial court's curative instruction.
The judgment is reversed and remanded for a new trial. While evidence of arrest for a separate crime may be admissible if relevant to the crime being tried and necessary to explain the circumstances of defendant's statements, the officer's gratuitous statement about the heroin arrest was improperly inflammatory and prejudicial, regardless of the trial court's curative instruction.
[1] Evidence of a defendant's arrest for unrelated crimes is inadmissible if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
[2] A gratuitous reference by a police officer to a defendant's arrest for unrelated crimes, specifically drug offenses, can be so prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair…
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 admission of evidence of arrest for unrelated crimes has often been held to constitute reversible error.”
Establishes the general rule against admitting evidence of unrelated arrests
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClark was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny of drugs and equipment from a doctor's office on Ja…
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 Other Crimes cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Appellant was charged with having committed on January 16, 1975, the crimes of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny, and grand larceny of certain drugs and equipment from a doctor’s office. He was convicted of both offenses and given concurrent sentences.
The only point on appeal having any merit arises from the following testimony given by a policeman on direct examination during the state’s case, to wit:
“Q Could you tell us what date subsequent to January 16 did you encounter Mr. Clark, or approximately what date?
A It was in early February. I arrested him for sale and possession of heroin.”
Appellant’s counsel immediately moved for a mistrial. The court then instructed the jury to disregard the reference to other charges pending against the appellant and asked each juror if he could put such reference out of his mind. Upon receiving affirmative answers from each of the jurors, the motion for mistrial was denied.
The admission of evidence of arrest for unrelated crimes has often been held to constitute reversible error. E. g., Whitehead v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). The true rule, however, is that evidence will not be excluded merely because it relates to facts which point to the commission of a separate crime so long as it is relevant to the crime for which the defendant is being prosecuted. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959).
The evidence that the appellant had been placed under arrest was relevant to this case because it was in subsequent conversations with the police that appellant made inculpatory statements concerning the crimes for which he was being prosecuted. Moreover, it was necessary that the fact of appellant’s arrest be explained in order that an intelligent account of the circumstances of his making the statement could be given. Cf. Frederiksen v. State, 312 So. 2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).
If the officer had only referred to the fact of placing appellant under arrest, we would have no qualms about the judgment. However, his gratuitous statement that he had arrested appellant for sale and possession of heroin went too far. Understandably, those involved in the trafficking of heroin are held in the highest disrepute by law-abiding members of the community. It is too much to ask a juror to put this out of his mind while he is deliberating over the defendant’s guilt of another crime. Cf. Jones v. State, 305 So. 2d 827 (Fla.4th DCA 1975). While it might be argued that the nature of the crime with which appellant was charged had a slight relevance to the case because the inculpatory statements were made as part of an effort by appellant to try to get out of the heroin charge,- we think the prejudice implicit in the officer’s reference to having arrested appellant for the sale and possession of heroin completely outweighed any probative value and precluded the possibility of appellant receiving a fair trial. See Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Ford, 92 So. 2d 160, at page 166 (Fla.1957).
The judgment and sentence are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilding v. State, 427 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…er crime. Marrero v. State, 343 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Subject to certain exceptions which are not applicable in the ease sub judice, it is error for a witness to testify concerning a defendant’s arrest for unrelated crimes. Clark v. State, 337 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Whitehead v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. [*1070] Stat. (1981). Additionally, we have held that even in the absence of direct testimony by a witness, it was error to allow the admission of “mug sh…
-
Stanford Legray Knight v. State, 374 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…to permit evidence that Knight had been arrested (on another occasion) for a crime not related to the present charges. Warren v. State, 371 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Whitehead v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); see Clark v. State, 337 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). At the retrial, the contents of the officer’s conversation with Knight, which were relevant on the issue of premeditation, should be related without reference to the fact that the occasion of the communication was an arrest. Se…
-
Adan v. State, 453 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…nrelated charge of burglary, under the particular facts of this case, was not relevant to any issue of material fact concerning the murder and therefore was inadmissible under the Williams rule. See Waterhouse, 429 So. 2d at 306. Cf. Clark v. State, 337 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (court indicated that evidence that defendant had been placed under arrest for an unrelated crime was relevant to give an “intelligent account of the circumstances of his making the statement,” but that evidence of what the unrela…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Ford, 92 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 1955)
- Blackman v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Jones v. State, 305 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Frederiksen v. State, 312 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)