LARRY MARK LUTHERMAN, 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.
Larry Mark Lutherman appeals his convictions for aggravated assault and resisting an officer without violence. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in preventing cross-examination of police witnesses about pending investigations into allegations of police brutality arising from the same incident.
Yes. The trial court erred in sustaining objections to cross-examination questions about the pending police brutality investigations. A defendant has a wide range of permissible cross-examination in criminal cases, and the jury should have been permitted to consider evidence regarding bias or prejudice of prosecution witnesses, particularly where police officers were the only witnesses for the state.
[1] A defendant has a right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses regarding bias or prejudice.
[2] Evidence of a pending investigation into allegations of police brutality arising from the same incident as the charges against the defendant is relevant to witness credib…
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“A defendant in a criminal case is normally accorded a wide range in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that defendants have broad cross-examination rights in criminal trials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLutherman was charged with aggravated assault and resisting an officer without violence. During trial, the prosecution's only witnesses were two polic…
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 Witness Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
Harry Mark Lutherman appeals from convictions of aggravated assault and resisting an officer without violence, pursuant to a jury verdict.
During cross-examination by defense counsel of Officer Martin, the following question was objected to:
“So is it true that Hialeah Gardens and yourself as an individual are under investigation for police brutality as a result of this case?”
The trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard. Subsequently, Officer Nieto, another State’s witness, was asked by defense counsel:
“Is it true that you are under investigation as a result of police brutality?”
The State’s objection was sustained and defense counsel was admonished to restrict himself in the future.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit defense counsel to question the State’s police witnesses concerning an investigation of allegations of police brutality, when the allegations arose from the same incident, as did the charges against the defendant, and where the information sought to be elicited was relevant to show bias or prejudice on the part of witnesses. A defendant in a criminal case is normally accorded a wide range in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713 (1899); Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447, 147 So. 897 (1983); Roberts v. State, 164 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1964); Kirkland v. State, 185 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A.1966); 35 FlaJur., Witnesses, § 190. The credibility, bias, or prejudice of a prosecution witness should be of paramount concern to a jury in the exercise of its fact-finding function. Liberality of cross-examination should be permitted in order to demonstrate a bias or prejudice on the part of a prosecution witness. Wallace v. State, supra; Kirkland v. State, supra; 35 Fla.Jur., Witnesses, § 190.
Clearly, in the instant case, where the only witnesses for the prosecution were the two police officers, the jury should have been permitted to hear evidence and to consider it relating to a pending investigation of these same police officers upon a complaint made by the defendant, in order for the jury to correctly determine their credibility.
Wherefore, for the reasons above stated, the jury verdicts, adjudications of guilt, and sentences be and they are hereby reversed, and this cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McArthur Breedlove v. State, 580 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1991)…e officer-witnesses about an internal investigation of allegations of police brutality which arose from the same incident as the defendant’s criminal charges because that evidence was relevant to the witnesses’ bias or prejudice. Lutherman v. State, 348 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In Stripling v. State, 349 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.1978), the district court held that a defendant charged with bribery and conspiracy to bribe a police officer should have been allowed t…
-
Ulysses LEE v. State, 422 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…l be ample latitude for pertinent inquiry and that such limitations as are placed on the cross-examination are done with solicitude for the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. See D.C. v. State, 400 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Lutherman v. State, 348 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); United States v. Tracey, supra; United States v. Kinnard, 465 F. 2d 566 (D.C.Cir.1972); Wynn v. United States, supra. However, as in the case of other relevant evidence, evidence of bias may be inadmissible when it creates a dang…
-
McD. v. State, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…stigations?” The defendant in a criminal case is accorded wide latitude in the cross-examination of prosecutorial witnesses. Mendez v. State, 412 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Porter v. State, 386 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Lutherman v. State, 348 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). All witnesses are subject to cross-examination for the purpose of discrediting them by showing bias, prejudice, or interest. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); D.C. v. State, 400 So. 2d 825 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wallace v. State, 26 So. 713 (Fla. 1899)
- Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1933)
- Roberts v. State, 164 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1964)
- Kirkland v. State, 185 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)