Patterson v. State, 85-1733
| Decision Date | 28 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1733,85-1733 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 402 Edward Lamar PATTERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and A.N. Radabaugh, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lauren Hafner Sewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced for kidnapping without a firearm, battery, and trespass in a structure without a firearm. Appellant argues that the court erred in granting the state's motion in limine to limit appellant's cross-examination of a state witness, Larry Cox, as to current criminal charges pending against Cox. We agree.
The general rule of law is that evidence of pending charges against a witness is inadmissible for impeachment purposes unless the charges arise out of the same incident. Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280 (Fla.1976). The rule, however, does not apply in criminal cases when a prosecution witness is under criminal charges. The defendant then has an absolute right to bring those charges out in cross-examination, even when they relate to a different offense. Morrell v. State, 297 So.2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Lee v. State, 318 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Cox was the state's key witness, and the kidnapping and battery charges rested on his credibility. The fact that there were criminal charges pending against Cox tends to show that he had a reason to testify in favor of the state. The court erred in prohibiting appellant's cross-examination of Cox. However, the error was harmless with respect to the trespass charge because Cox's testimony concerning that charge was cumulative.
We reverse the convictions of kidnapping and battery and remand for a new trial. We affirm the judgment and sentence for trespass in a structure without a firearm.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dingle v. State, 96-2209
...regarding the health of the victim on the day in question was merely cumulative to other testimony adduced. See Patterson v. State, 501 So.2d 691, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); but see Cortes, 670 So.2d at 121 (it was clear error to prohibit cross-examination of a key prosecution witness regardin......
-
Simmons v. State, 88-2395
...Means for the purposes of impeaching Means' credibility and/or demonstrating his bias in favor of the state. Patterson v. State, 501 So.2d 691, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The convictions for sale of cocaine are affirmed, and the conviction for possession with intent to sell is reversed and the......
-
Bennett v. State, 96-02402
...have had the right to cross-examine him about the nature of the charges to show bias or a motive to fabricate. See Patterson v. State, 501 So.2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (stating that defendant has absolute right to bring out pending criminal charges in cross-examination of prosecution witnes......
-
Kreager v. Sunset Colony Joint Venture, 4-86-1123
... ... the second amended complaint, taken together with the preceding "jurisdiction statement," do state a statutory cause of action under section 723.022, Florida Statutes (1985). Specifically, we ... ...