Bates v. State, 81-2320
| Decision Date | 30 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2320,81-2320 |
| Parties | Edward BATES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Diane Leeds, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ.
Edward Bates appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence of fifteen years imprisonment entered after a jury trial on the charge of sexual battery with the use of force not likely to cause serious injury under Section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (1981).
It is appellant's contention on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial because a police officer testified to an alleged statement of the appellant related to him by the victim of the sexual battery in this case. The officer testified that the victim told him that appellant had stated to her that he had been in prison before. Counsel for appellant objected to such testimony and moved for a mistrial on the grounds that it constituted an impermissible and prejudicial attack upon the character of appellant (who did not testify at trial), and denied him a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The court denied the motion, informing counsel that it would give a curative instruction. Counsel for appellant objected that any such instruction would not be sufficient to cure the prejudice resulting from the hearsay statement that appellant had been in prison. The court proceeded to instruct the jury that the testimony of the officer was hearsay and to "[p]lease disregard what the officer has been saying or has said up to this point regarding what [the victim] told him as being hearsay and rely as to what [the victim] said from the testimony of [the victim]...."
We find merit in the appellant's contention on appeal and agree that the instruction given was insufficient. Odom v. United States, 377 F.2d 853, 859-60 (5th Cir.1967).
It is fundamental that the prosecution may not impugn the character of an accused unless the accused first puts character into issue at trial. Wilt v. State, 410 So.2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hodges v. State, 403 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), petition for review denied, 413 So.2d 877 (Fla.1982); Albright v. State, 378 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
We have carefully reviewed the record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertson v. State
...without the defendant first affirmatively putting his character at issue, which the record indicates did not occur. See Bates v. State, 422 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)(It is fundamental that the prosecution may not impugn the character of an accused unless the accused first puts character......
-
Smith v. State, 86-2624
...therefore the trial court should not admit same upon the new trial which we are ordering in this cause. See Bates v. State, 422 So.2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sias v. State, 416 So.2d 1213, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 424 So.2d 763 (Fla.1982); Albright v. State, 378 So.2d 1234, 1......
-
Singletary v. State
...of improper testimony from the minds of jurors. See Odom v. United States, 377 F.2d 853, 859-60 (5th Cir.1967) cited in Bates v. State, 422 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). As to contention (2), expression of personal beliefs by a prosecutor is improper. See, e.g., O'Callaghan v. State, 429 S......
-
Shaffer v. State, 92-1880
...thoroughly prejudicial that it cannot be cured by a simple admonition to disregard it under the facts of this case. See Bates v. State, 422 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). No one else was able to make any identification of the suspects, and the rest of the state's case was made up entirely o......