Parker v. State
| Citation | 408 So.2d 1037 |
| Decision Date | 07 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 59947,59947 |
| Parties | W. T. PARKER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Charles D. Peters, Chief, Appellate Division, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Laura R. Morrison and Max Rudmann, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
On the basis of express conflict of decisions, Parker asks us to review a ruling of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, 389 So.2d 336, reported as Parker v. State, 389 So.2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We have jurisdiction 1 and approve Parker.
Parker was charged with two counts of aggravated assault and with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In proving the possession charge the state introduced, over objection, a certified copy of a judgment and sentence 2 for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny to establish Parker's prior conviction. Defense counsel had offered to stipulate to the previous conviction, but the state refused the offer.
The question before us is whether the state may refuse a defendant's offer to stipulate to a prior felony conviction and prove the conviction by the use of a certified copy of the judgment when the fact of the conviction is an essential element of the crime charged.
We previously held in Arrington v. State, 233 So.2d 634 (Fla.1970), that the state is not bound by the defendant's offer to stipulate to essential elements of the crime, stating that exclusion of such relevant evidence is left to the discretion of the trial court based on traditional grounds. Section 790.23(1), Florida Statutes (1977), prohibiting the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, makes a prior conviction an essential element of the crime. Therefore, proof of conviction is relevant evidence and is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. 3
In the present case the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by any of these considerations. The decision of the district court is approved. We disapprove Fouts v. State, 374 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979), to the extent it conflicts with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
1 Conflict with Fouts v. State, 374 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. City of Gadsden, an Ala. Mun. Corp.
......Although it is Rosser's affidavit, it begins by saying: “Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Kenneth and Debbie McElroy .. who being by me first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows[.]” (Doc. 47–15, p. 1) ...at 875, 116 S.Ct. at 2455. Parker v. Wakelin, 123 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1997). The Eleventh Circuit has not addressed this issue of whether the ERS, or any other ......
-
Scott v. Williams
...... Appellants Governor Rick Scott, Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi, and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater, in their capacity as the State Board of Administration of Florida, and John Miles, Secretary of the Department of Management Services of Florida, appealed a judgment of the Circuit ......
-
Frey v. State
...See Fouts v. State, 374 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (escape is specific intent crime), overruled on other grounds, Parker v. State, 408 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1982).14 See Spivey v. State, 680 So.2d 565, 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(theft is a specific intent crime) (citing Redding v. State, 666 So.2d ......
-
Linehan v. State
...(burglary); Fouts v. State, 374 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (escape from protective custody), overruled on other grounds, Parker v. State, 408 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1982). Florida courts have rejected the voluntary intoxication defense in the following cases involving general intent crimes. Gentr......