MICHAEL LEONARD JOHNSON, 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.
The court held that the admission of testimony regarding an offer to bribe a witness, without a showing of the defendant's involvement or objection at trial, does not constitute reversible error.
[1] Evidence of a third party offering money to a witness to testify falsely for the defendant, without a showing that the defendant authorized or knew of the offer, may cons…
[2] A trial court's denial of a mistrial based on the admission of testimony concerning a third party's offer to bribe a witness may constitute reversible error.
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 intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of involuntary sexual battery. During the trial, testimony emerged that the defendant's brother offered money to a witness…
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 Involuntary Sexual Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was found guilty of involuntary sexual battery by a jury and was sentenced to one year in the Dade County stockade. On this appeal from the judgment, he has presented five points, four of which are as follows: (1) The evidence was not sufficient to show lack of consent to the intercourse. (2) A new trial should be granted because of comments by the prosecuting attorney in closing argument. (3) The court erred in allowing the introduction into evidence of a pretrial statement of the codefendant. (4) The court erred in admitting into evidence a pretrial statement of this defendant. The fifth point is of suffi cient importance that it should be set out in its entirety:
“Whether the State committed reversible error in offering into evidence testimony that the defendant’s brother offered the victim’s boyfriend money to testify for the defense.” [Emphasis added]
The first four points do not present reversible error. The evidence was conflicting but sufficient to prove lack of consent depending upon which of the witnesses told the truth. The comments here objected to were in the main, not objected to in the trial, and in no instance were the comments so objectionable to require a new trial. The pretrial statements were properly admitted where there was no motion to sever the trial of the two defendants and the statements were voluntary.
The admission, over objection, of a witness’s testimony that someone other than the defendant, or someone not shown to be acting with defendant’s knowledge, offered that witness $200.00 to testify falsely for the defendant is grounds for the granting of a mistrial, and the denial thereof would be reversible error. Coleman v. State, 335 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). No error appears in this case because the action complained of (the offering of evidence) was not an action of the court. No objection nor motion for mistrial appears in the record. Our review of the circumstances of the offer convinces us that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial. Therefore, no fundamental error appears.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 385 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…irrelevant and collateral to the issue of whether the defendant committed the crime for which he is charged and its admission over objection is grounds for the granting of mistrial and the denial thereof would be reversible error. Johnson v. State, 355 So. 2d 200 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). Furthermore, the admission of such evidence could only serve to create undue prejudice in the minds of the jury against the accused. Coleman v. State, 335 So. 2d 364 (Fla.4th DCA 1976). [*1044] Since there was no evidence presente…
-
Jasper Otis Reeves v. State, 423 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…irrelevant and collateral to the issue of whether the defendant committed the crime for which he is charged and its admission over objection is grounds for the granting of mistrial and the denial thereof would be reversible error. Johnson v. State, 355 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Furthermore, the admission of such evidence could only serve to create undue prejudice in the minds of the jury against the accused. Coleman v. State, 335 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Id. at 1043. In the present case, it was…
Authorities Cited
- Coleman v. State, 335 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)