Chapman v. State, No. 81-1351

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtFERGUSON
Citation417 So.2d 1028
PartiesRobert Warren CHAPMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 81-1351
Decision Date13 July 1982

Page 1028

417 So.2d 1028
Robert Warren CHAPMAN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 81-1351.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.
July 13, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 25, 1982.

Page 1029

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Theda R. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

FERGUSON, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a jury conviction for robbery and escape. He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based upon (1) repeated references by the prosecutor and state witnesses to offenses not charged in the information, (2) testimony elicited from a defense witness regarding the prior criminal record of the defendant, which improperly and prejudicially tended to show that defendant had bad character. We agree and reverse.

Miss Jaime Joyce, age 16, the alleged victim of a robbery, testified as follows: On the morning of July 11, 1980 Jaime received a telephone call from an individual identified as Dennis who said he was on his way to her home. She had met Dennis at the beach one week earlier. Dennis arrived about 11:15 a. m. on a motorcycle accompanied by the defendant Chapman. Initially, Jaime stayed in her bedroom because a neighbor had told her that Dennis was "bad news" but she subsequently allowed Dennis and Chapman to enter the house. The defendant offered her quaaludes and cocaine which she refused. However, later she joined them in a "couple of puffs of marijuana". The three of them, defendant, Dennis and Jaime, talked for approximately thirty minutes. Defendant then produced a gun and told her to "get on the floor, this is a robbery". Dennis was also instructed to lie on the floor. After complying, Jaime, covered with pillows and sheets, was unable to observe subsequent events. She heard the defendant make a telephone call and later heard other persons inside the house and "drawers being pulled out and things being thrown around". When she sensed that everyone had left, she went to the window and observed the defendant, wearing a denim jacket and blue jeans, riding away on the motorcycle. Jaime telephoned her mother who contacted the police. Jaime was present when the defendant was arrested later that day but she did not identify him to police officers because she was frightened.

The first of the errors complained of is based on references to a sexual battery of the victim which the state had decided not to prosecute for reasons not appearing in the record. It was conceded that if a sexual battery had occurred, the defendant was not the perpetrator. At the trial, all witnesses had been cautioned before taking the witness stand to avoid mentioning the alleged rape.

The uncharged offense was first referred to on cross-examination of Jaime about out-of-court statements she had given to a policeman which were inconsistent with her in-court testimony:

Q. And do you remember when he was discussing with you the man who left on the motorcycle?

A. Yes.

Q. And in response to the question you have the answer, this answer, [sic] "Was this the same description, the same clothes that you just described...?" And, your answer, "Oh, I didn't see the guy's clothes when he left on the motorcycle. I didn't pay attention really to that I don't know if it was the same guy that left that I told you about earlier...."

After the victim admitted that the statement had been given by her to investigating officers the attempt to impeach continued:

Q. My question to you is this: Your answer is different today then it was then. Yes?

A. Uh-huh.

Page 1030

Q. It is not?

A. Well, I said something, but you said, you said, you told me I couldn't say it.

At a side-bar conference, defense counsel requested the court to direct the witness to respond to the question with a yes or no answer. Defense counsel was cautioned to "be very careful" because the witness was allowed to explain inconsistent statements and in this case the rape would be a logical explanation. The proceedings continued in the presence of the jury:

THE COURT: Miss Joyce ... it is very important that you listen a lot more carefully to the questions than I think you have been...

Just listen to the question and answer as simply as possible, and if at all possible, and by a simple yes or no answer.

Now you are not restricted to that. It is not like you have to say something and then at that point you are stuck because it sounds terrible. If you want to explain your answer, just as soon as you answer, you can say, "I would like to explain that," and then give the explanation that you care to, within the parameters that you have been talking about. 1

The next witness called by the state was Mrs. Glynda Joyce, mother of the victim. On direct examination she testified:

Q. MR. NORRIS [Prosecutor] Did you talk to Jaime, Ma'am?

A. On the telephone.

Q. What did she say?

MR. GAER: Judge, I must object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. [By Prosecutor] What did she say, Ma'am?

A. She said, "We were robbed, somebody get me to a doctor and don't call the police."

The state's next witness was Detective Slovonic. The following exchange took place on direct examination:

Q. [By Prosecutor] What information did you receive from the victim, Jaime Joyce?

A. When I interviewed Jaime Joyce, she told me that earlier in that day, approximately an hour and a half prior to my arrival on the scene, that two white males had forced their way into the house at gunpoint. After getting into the house they found her, covered her head with a sheet, laid her on the living room floor. Then as she was laying there, two or three other white males were let into the house.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Robertson v. State, No. 3D98-2383.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 28, 2001
    ...See State v. Norris, 168 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla.1964); Audano v. State, 641 So.2d 1356, 1358-59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Chapman v. State, 417 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In order to establish the alleged prior crime, the state presented only the testimony of defendant's ex-wife. There was......
  • Williams v. State, No. 39641
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • December 5, 1983
    ...other jurisdictions. See State v. Botham, 629 P.2d 589 (Colo.1981); Page v. United States, 438 A.2d 195 (D.C.App.1981); Chapman v. State, 417 So.2d 1028 (Fla.App.1982); State v. Lee, 381 So.2d 792 (La.1980); Cross v. State, 282 Md. 468, 386 A.2d 757 (1978); State v. McAdoo, 330 N.W.2d 104 (......
  • Robertson v. State, No. 3D98-2383.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 12, 2000
    ...See State v. Norris, 168 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla.1964); Audano v. State, 641 So.2d 1356, 1358-59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Chapman v. State, 417 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). This requirement is the same whether the collateral crimes are presented in the state's case-in-chief after compliance ......
  • Robertson v. State, No. SC01-890.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 10, 2002
    ...Audano v. State, 641 So.2d 1356, 1359-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Malcolm v. State, 415 So.2d 891, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Chapman v. State, 417 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Norris, 168 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla.1964). 4. See Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 194 n. 6 (Fla.1997); Heur......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Robertson v. State, No. 3D98-2383.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 28, 2001
    ...See State v. Norris, 168 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla.1964); Audano v. State, 641 So.2d 1356, 1358-59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Chapman v. State, 417 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In order to establish the alleged prior crime, the state presented only the testimony of defendant's ex-wife. There was......
  • Williams v. State, No. 39641
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • December 5, 1983
    ...other jurisdictions. See State v. Botham, 629 P.2d 589 (Colo.1981); Page v. United States, 438 A.2d 195 (D.C.App.1981); Chapman v. State, 417 So.2d 1028 (Fla.App.1982); State v. Lee, 381 So.2d 792 (La.1980); Cross v. State, 282 Md. 468, 386 A.2d 757 (1978); State v. McAdoo, 330 N.W.2d 104 (......
  • Robertson v. State, No. 3D98-2383.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 12, 2000
    ...See State v. Norris, 168 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla.1964); Audano v. State, 641 So.2d 1356, 1358-59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Chapman v. State, 417 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). This requirement is the same whether the collateral crimes are presented in the state's case-in-chief after compliance ......
  • Robertson v. State, No. SC01-890.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 10, 2002
    ...Audano v. State, 641 So.2d 1356, 1359-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Malcolm v. State, 415 So.2d 891, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Chapman v. State, 417 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Norris, 168 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla.1964). 4. See Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 194 n. 6 (Fla.1997); Heur......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT