Coronado v. State, 94-01129
| Decision Date | 17 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-01129,94-01129 |
| Citation | 654 So.2d 1267 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1225 Byron CORONADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Douglas A. Wallace, Bradenton, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant, found guilty of two counts of aggravated battery, argues on appeal that a number of errors occurred at trial and that his convictions and sentence should be reversed. We disagree as to his convictions, but partially agree as to his sentence.
These proceedings stem from an incident that occurred behind a strip shopping center in which appellant, his co-defendant brother and others allegedly beat the victims, Tice and Harbaugh, with sticks, causing various injuries.
Appellant maintains first that the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) run report should have been admitted into evidence because it showed how minor the victims' injuries were. The court refused to allow it because it found the information contained in the report was cumulative to the information the two paramedics testified to while on the stand.
We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the report in view of the fact that all material facts contained in the report had already been testified to by the two paramedics. Specifically, defense counsel stated that he wanted to admit the report into evidence to "memorialize what happened at the scene and the fact that the injuries were, at best, very minor." (R 325). The transcript reveals, however, that Gibbs, the only paramedic who exited the truck to give assistance, referred on the stand to the injuries as "minor injuries" and "minor trauma." He clarified that the "no injuries" notation in the report was a mistake on his part, that he meant to say "minor injuries, no service," meaning no treatment was given. There was no error in refusing to admit the report. Even if, arguendo, the court should have admitted the report, the failure to do so was harmless since the same information was presented by the witnesses who testified.
Appellant argues next that the stick introduced at trial was not properly identified as the stick wielded by appellant. Although the stick introduced was not specifically identified as the stick used by appellant, it was identified as similar to the one used by appellant and was also identified as a stick that was left on the ground by the perpetrators of the battery. Given the fact that there is no dispute that appellant was wielding a stick and that that stick was what caused the injuries, we conclude that any error was harmless. The jury verdict would not have been different had the stick not been presented. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Appellant argues thirdly that the court erred in allowing one of the victims of the battery, Harbaugh, to testify to a threat from appellant. Specifically, when asked on direct examination where he was employed, Harbaugh responded that he did not want to reveal that information because he did not want appellant to know where he worked. However, evidence of that threat had already been introduced via Tice, the other victim, over appellant's objection. Tice testified that appellant had told Tice to tell Harbaugh that appellant would "kick his ass" if Harbaugh pressed charges. Harbaugh's later reluctance to give his address is merely cumulative of that properly-admitted earlier testimony. Evidence of threats made by a defendant or with a defendant's knowledge is relevant to an attempt to suborn perjury since it indicates a desire to evade prosecution and is evidence of consciousness of guilt. See Knotts v. State, 533 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Manuel v. State, 524 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Although appellant maintains that there is no proof that Harbaugh knew of the threat, that is belied by Harbaugh's very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. State
...have recognized similar evidence of subsequent crimes or wrongs as probative of consciousness of guilt. Coronado v. State, 654 So.2d 1267 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995) (subornation of a witness); Peoples v. State, 874 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.Ct.App.1994) (threat to a witness); Byrd v. State, 634 A.2d 988 ......
-
Commonwealth v. Heywood
...the brain indicates an impairment of a bodily function, namely, the victim's peripheral nervous system. See Coronado v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) ; Bright v. State, 986 So. 2d 1042, 1045, 1049 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Burwell, 42 A.3d 1077, 1078 ......
-
State v. Dorrance
...v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1, 4, 410 A.2d 648 (1980). Out-of-state decisions are also generally in accord. See, e.g., Coronado v. State, 654 So.2d 1267, 1270 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995) (victim suffered "great bodily harm" based on evidence of "facial fracture, numbness and a great deal of pain around t......
-
McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 01-16567.
...harm, and as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a simple assault and battery...." Coronado v. State, 654 So.2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(quoting Owens v. State, 289 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)). The profusely bleeding head wound suffered by Capuano......
-
Tough times in the sunshine state.
...See FLA. STAT. [sections] 790.235(3). (63) See, e.g., Morris v. State 722 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1998) (a dog); Coronado v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1995) (a (64) FLA. STAT. [sections] 790.235(1) (emphasis added). (65) Id. (66) Id. This law does not apply, however, to a d......