Roberts v. State

Decision Date07 March 1984
Docket NumberNo. 82-2000,82-2000
PartiesJohn ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Gary Caldwell, Asst. Public Defender, and Barbara White, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Marlyn J. Altman, and Sharon Lee Stedman, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with grand theft of an airplane and eventually convicted after jury trial of the lesser included offense of temporary unauthorized use of the airplane. Three points are raised on appeal, one of which we conclude merits reversal. The State attempted to impeach the appellant ANSTEAD, C.J., BERANEK, J., and COCALIS, PATRICIA W., Associate Judge.

by demonstrating that he had been convicted of a prior crime. This impeachment was improper in accordance with Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1981), re: conviction of certain crimes as impeachment. We, therefore, reverse the conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

The petition for rehearing is hereby denied.

BERANEK, J., and COCALIS, PATRICIA W., Associate Judge, concur.

ANSTEAD, C.J., concurs specially with opinion.

ANSTEAD, C.J., concurring specially:

I concur specially only to note that our prior opinion is in direct conflict with the Second District's opinion in Barker v. State, 413 So.2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In Barker, the Second District embraced the view adopted in a number of federal circuits that a finding of guilt by a jury should logically be just as sufficient as a finding followed by an adjudication, to serve as a predicate for impeaching a witness' veracity. However logical this view may appear, I presume the legislature was aware, when it enacted section 90.610(1) that the Florida Supreme Court had already announced:

This court has so often expressed the opinion that the word "conviction" includes the judgment of the court, as well as a plea or verdict of guilty, that such definition of the word as used in the statute or plea invoked to describe the effect of a former conviction in a subsequent cause may be said to be firmly established.

Smith v. State, 75 Fla. 468, 78 So. 530, 532 (1918). Since the Florida Supreme Court had already taken a clear-cut view of the meaning of "conviction," I believe we are bound to construe section 90.610(1) as intending to incorporate that definition when this provision was passed. In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. McFadden
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 9, 2000
    ...See id. (citing Barber, 413 So.2d at 484). In contrast to Barber and Johnson, the Fourth District in Roberts v. State, 450 So.2d 1126, 1126-27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), reversed after determining that the State's attempt to impeach the defendant with a prior conviction was improper because the t......
  • State v. Raydo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 25, 1998
    ...and Barber. It agreed with the reasoning of Justice Anstead (then Judge Anstead) in his concurring opinion in Roberts v. State, 450 So.2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), that "conviction" should be narrowly construed, but then found that the issue had not been preserved because the defendan......
  • McFadden v. State, 98-91.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 14, 1999
    ...569 So.2d 1280 (Fla.), however, we rely on and follow the reasoning of then-Judge Anstead in Roberts v. State, 450 So.2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)(Anstead, J., specially concurring), review denied, 461 So.2d 116 (Fla.), which expressed his disagreement with Barber on the ground However......
  • Parker v. State, 89-1550
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 12, 1990
    ... ... State, 449 So.2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA) review denied, 458 So.2d 274 (Fla.1984), and Barber v. State, 413 So.2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). He relies, however, on language in a concurring opinion by Judge Anstead in Roberts v. State, 450 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 461 So.2d 116 (Fla.1984), which noted conflict with Barber and stated: ... I presume the legislature was aware, when it enacted section 90.610(1) that the Florida Supreme Court had already announced: ... This court has so often expressed the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Liability of the commercial driver: negligent hiring meets the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 75 No. 2, February - February 2001
    • February 1, 2001
    ...391.73. (24) FLA. STAT. [sections] 119.07(3)(bb)10 (1996). (25) Smith v. State, 78 So. 530, 532 (Fla. 1918); followed Roberts v. State, 450 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. (26) See, e.g., McCraven v. City of Chicago, 18 F. Supp. 2d 877 (N.D. Ill. 1998); Gregory v. Litton Systems, 472 F. 2d 631......

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