VINCENT J. RAGUSA, 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.
Vincent Ragusa appeals his conviction on two counts of grand larceny by fraudulent representation. While the appellate court found sufficient evidence supported the conviction on the merits, it reversed due to prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination involving unrelated criminal accusations that improperly impeached Ragusa's credibility.
The trial court properly denied the motions for judgment of acquittal because the State presented sufficient evidence of fraudulent representation. However, the prosecution committed reversible error by cross-examining Ragusa about unrelated criminal accusations, which constituted improper impeachment and could have affected the verdicts.
[1] A prosecutor may not cross-examine a defendant about unrelated criminal accusations that have no substantial connection to the charges for which the defendant is on trial…
[2] Asking a defendant whether they were involved in a conspiracy or attempted to fix an exam, when those matters are not the subject of the current charges, constitutes impr…
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“An accusation of criminal conduct was made and appellant called upon to either admit or deny the accusation. In our opinion this was not proper impeachment.”
The court's holding distinguishing improper accusations from proper impeachment through conviction inquiries
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRagusa was convicted of two counts of grand larceny by fraudulent representation under Florida Statutes Section 811.021(l)(a). During trial, Ragusa te…
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 Fraudulent Representations cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Judge.
Appellant, the defendant below, appeals his conviction on two counts of grand larceny by fraudulent representation, in violation of Section 811.021(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1973).
Appellant first contends that the State’s evidence failed to establish that he made .any fraudulent representations as to past or existing facts and therefore the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motions for judgment of acquittal. From our examination of the record on appeal we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. The trial court properly denied appellant’s motions for judgment of acquittal.
Appellant’s second point has merit. Reversible error was committed by the prosecuting attorney during his cross-examination of the defendant when he asked questions with regard to criminal accusations against the defendant which had no substantial connection with the charges for which the defendant was on trial. We refer specifically to the following:
“Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Ragusa, that you were a middle man in a conspiracy to commit bribery and you are now a State’s witness in that case?” (Trial Transcript, p. 317.)
“Q. That thousand and seventy dollars that you were talking to Rose about, that was to fix a cosmetology exam, wasn’t it?” (Trial Transcript, p. 324.)
Appellant had previously testified on cross-examination, “. . . I’m not in the habit of breaking the law.” The trial judge overruled defense counsel’s objections to the questions on the basis that this statement by appellant opened the door and allowed cross-examination concerning other criminal accusations because it went to appellant’s credibility as a witness. We respectfully disagree. Appellant was not asked if he had ever been convicted of a crime, which would have been a proper question. McArthur v. Cook, 99 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1957); Goodman v. State, 336 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA, Filed September 3, 1976). An accusation of criminal conduct was made and appellant called upon to either admit or deny the accusation. In our opinion this was not proper impeachment. The verdicts might reasonably have been affected by this improper discrediting of the appellant’s testimony. Therefore we cannot say that the error was harmless. Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla.1976).
REVERSED AND REMANDED for a new trial.
DOWNEY, J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981)…. See, e. g., Williams v. State, 117 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1960); Denson v. State, 264 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). Appellant cites several cases where convictions were reversed because of the admission of evidence of unrelated crime, Ragusa v. State, 338 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Colbert v. State, 320 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1976); Whitehead v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). In each of these cases, the defendant’s objection was overruled and the state w…
-
Pate v. State, 529 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…was improper. It was error to allow inquiry into defendant’s past criminal history other than convictions. See Fulton; Gelabert; Dixon v. State, 426 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Sneed v. State, 397 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Ragusa v. State, 338 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We now respectfully address the position of the dissenting opinion in this case. That position appears to be that the questions on cross-examination were proper attempts to get defendant to contradict his false testimony on dir…
Authorities Cited
- Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1976)
- McARTHUR v. Cook, 99 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1957)
- Goodman v. State, 336 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)