WILLIAM EARL DODSON, 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.
William Earl Dodson appealed his conviction for grand larceny (theft of an automobile), arguing that cross-examination regarding his prior crimes violated his right to a fair trial. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that defense counsel opened the door to such cross-examination through direct examination, and that evidence of prior crimes of dishonesty was properly admitted as material evidence reflecting adversely on the defendant's credibility.
The court held that no reversible error occurred. The defendant's attorney opened the door to such cross-examination through questions on direct examination. Evidence of prior crimes involving dishonesty, such as auto theft and property theft, was properly admitted as it had materiality and reflected adversely on the defendant's honesty and integrity.
[1] A defendant's attorney opens the door to cross-examination regarding prior convictions when the attorney elicits testimony about prior convictions on direct examination.
[2] Evidence of prior crimes is admissible on cross-examination if such crimes reflect adversely on a person's honesty and integrity.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Defendant's attorney opened the door.”
Establishes the open door doctrine—defense counsel's direct examination questioning about prior crimes allowed prosecution cross-examination
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDodson was tried before a jury for stealing a privately-owned automobile. The State presented evidence including testimony from an arresting officer t…
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 Relevance Of Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By appeal No. 76-2135, the defendant below seeks reversal of his conviction of grand larceny, the theft of a privately-owned automobile. On the trial which was before a jury, the State produced evidence in support of the charge, including testimony of an arresting officer that the defendant had admitted to him the theft of the car. The defendant testified. On direct examination his attorney questioned him regarding a conviction for auto theft twelve years previous, which the defendant admitted. His attorney then asked the defendant if he had been convicted of “other crimes” and of “other felonies”, to which the defendant answered in the affirmative. On cross-examination the prosecutor interrogated the defendant as to such “other crimes”, bringing out that they included another car theft, and thefts of property on breaking and entering.
Appellant contends the allowance of such cross-examination, over objection, deprived the defendant of a fair trial. We cannot agree. No reversible error was thereby committed. Defendant’s attorney opened the door. Shea v. State, 167 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Martin v. United States, 404 F. 2d 640, 642-643 (10th Cir. 1968).
By questions on direct examination of the defendant his attorney had created basis for an inference that there was one prior conviction for auto theft and that there were other crimes, i. e., crimes other than theft. The prosecutor, by cross-examination, sought to and did establish that such other crimes included auto theft and theft of other properties. Crimes of that kind, as distinguished from acts of violence, “are universally regarded as conduct which reflects adversely on a man’s honesty and integrity”. Gordon v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 383 F. 2d 936 (1967). That gave that evidence of other crimes materiality. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959). Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Appeal No. 77-158 is from an order revoking the defendant’s probation based on his above conviction. The contention on this other appeal is that the revocation order should be reversed if the judgment of conviction above referred to is reversed. That did not occur, and the order revoking probation is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Konstantinos X. Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1992)…ant attempts to mislead or delude the jury about his prior convictions, the State is entitled to further question the defendant concerning the convictions in order to negate any false impression given. See Leonard, 386 So. 2d at 52; Dodson v. State, 356 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 360 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1978); cf. McCrae v. State, 395 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1980) (although the scope of cross-examination generally should be no broader than the scope of direct examination, state was entitled to quest…
-
Bozeman v. State, 698 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…r bad acts, the defense must first offer misleading testimony or make a specific factual assertion which the state has the right to correct so that the jury will not be misled. See Brown v. State, 579 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Dodson v. State, 356 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hernandez v. State, 569 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Davis v. State, 216 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Allred v. State, 642 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Fletcher v. [*631] State, 619 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The “open…
-
Hierro v. State, 608 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…h of the crimes for which he had previously been found guilty. We see no basis on which the defendant opened the door to specific inquiry into the identity of the crimes for which he was previously convicted. This is not a case like Dodson v. State, 356 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 360 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1978), in which defendant by his testimony misled the jury regarding the extent of his prior record, thus opening the door to the State to set the record straight on the nature of defendant’s prior…
Previewing 3 of 16 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)
- Gordon v. United States (D.D.C. 1967)
- Martin v. United States, 404 F.2d 640 (10th Cir. 1968)
- Shea v. State, 167 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)