Hannah v. State, No. 82-1353
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Before SCHWARTZ; FERGUSON |
| Citation | 432 So.2d 631 |
| Parties | Gregory Dwayne HANNAH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 31 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1353 |
Page 631
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Third District.
Robert H. Martin, John H. Lipinski, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Penny Hershoff Brill, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
FERGUSON, Judge.
Appellant, a juvenile, raises as an issue in this appeal whether reversible error was committed by prohibiting the cross-examination of a key state witness for the purpose of showing bias or prejudice.
The evidence showed that two armed men, one of whom was masked, entered the Pizza Hut and took money from Moneypenny, an employee, under the threat of force. Moneypenny identified appellant as the masked robber. At trial, appellant attempted to cross-examine Moneypenny regarding an incident between appellant's cousin and Moneypenny, which purportedly would show a vengeful motive for having named appellant as one of the robbers; the cross-examination was not permitted. The court further granted the state's motion in limine to prohibit appellant's cousin from testifying as to that same event. The testimony, as proffered, would have shown, by cross-examination of Moneypenny, or direct examination of the cousin Jones, that Jones, as a co-worker of Moneypenny, had once accused Moneypenny of stealing money from the employer, and that their relationship had soured, spilling over to appellant whom Moneypenny knew well as Jones' cousin.
All witnesses are subject to cross-examination for the purpose of discrediting them by showing bias, prejudice or interest, and this is particularly so where a key witness is being cross-examined. D.C. v. State, 400 So.2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Jones v. State, 385 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Webb v. State, 336 So.2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). It makes no difference that the bias or prejudice stems from an incident involving the state witness and a family member of the accused rather than the accused himself, as long as the evidence tends to establish that the witness is appearing for any
Page 632
reason other than to tell the truth. D.C. v. State; Johnson v. State, 338 So.2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). 1The sixth amendment right to confrontation of witnesses requires that a defendant in a state criminal case be allowed to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness by cross-examination to show bias. Denial of effective...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marr v. State, No. AU-499
...by cross-examination to show bias. Denial of effective cross-examination in such circumstances is constitutional error. Hannah v. State, 432 So.2d 631, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (e.s.). See also Watts v. State, 450 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Our research in this area has revealed only one F......
-
O'Hara v. State, No. 93-3451
...witness which might show bias, prejudice, or improper motive, it was error to limit the questioning of this witness. Hannah v. State, 432 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). On retrial, defense counsel is entitled to a thorough examination of the The other pertinent issue concerns the jury instru......
-
Bell v. State, No. 91-872
...v. State, 418 So.2d 1223, 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Watts v. State, 450 So.2d 265, 267-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hannah v. State, 432 So.2d 631, 631-32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Charles should have been required to answer Page 564 them. Breedlove; Moreno; Watts, 450 So.2d at 268. The trial c......
-
Watts v. State, No. 83-751
...v. Alaska, 415 U.S. Page 268 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982); Hannah v. State, 432 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Kelly v. State, 425 So.2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), petition for rev. denied, 434 So.2d 889 (Fla.1983); Mendez v. State, 412......
-
Marr v. State, No. AU-499
...by cross-examination to show bias. Denial of effective cross-examination in such circumstances is constitutional error. Hannah v. State, 432 So.2d 631, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (e.s.). See also Watts v. State, 450 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Our research in this area has revealed only one F......
-
O'Hara v. State, No. 93-3451
...witness which might show bias, prejudice, or improper motive, it was error to limit the questioning of this witness. Hannah v. State, 432 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). On retrial, defense counsel is entitled to a thorough examination of the The other pertinent issue concerns the jury instru......
-
Bell v. State, No. 91-872
...v. State, 418 So.2d 1223, 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Watts v. State, 450 So.2d 265, 267-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hannah v. State, 432 So.2d 631, 631-32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Charles should have been required to answer Page 564 them. Breedlove; Moreno; Watts, 450 So.2d at 268. The trial c......
-
Watts v. State, No. 83-751
...v. Alaska, 415 U.S. Page 268 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982); Hannah v. State, 432 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Kelly v. State, 425 So.2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), petition for rev. denied, 434 So.2d 889 (Fla.1983); Mendez v. State, 412......