Russell v. State, 5D02-1475.
Decision Date | 09 May 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 5D02-1475.,5D02-1475. |
Citation | 844 So.2d 725 |
Parties | William RUSSELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Noel Pelella, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee and Ann M. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
William Russell appeals his convictions which were entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of committing the crimes of attempted burglary and petit theft. We affirm.
Russell was charged with committing a burglary of a structure, criminal mischief, and petit theft. The charges arose out of an incident in which Russell burglarized a Taco Bell restaurant, damaged cash registers, and stole a quantity of change. The jury found Russell guilty of attempted burglary, a lesser included offense of the burglary of a structure and petit theft charges.
Russell challenges two ruling of the trial court. First, he argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. The motion was made after a state witness allegedly implied that Russell had previously been arrested on an unrelated charge. However, our review of the trial transcript reveals that this argument is meritless.
During the State's case-in-chief, Detective Christoff testified as follows:
Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing that Christoff's statement improperly implied that Russell had been arrested for criminal activity other than that relating to charges in the instant case. However, Christoff's statement never referenced Russell and, therefore, the trial court properly denied the motion. See Harrison v. State, 775 So.2d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
(defendant's criminal history, did not impermissibly imply to jury that defendant had a prior criminal history, so as to warrant mistrial, where prosecutor interrupted deputy before deputy could testify as to results of his check of defendant's criminal history, and question asked by prosecutor was not one which would have normally elicited a statement with regard to any criminal history). that deputy's testimony about his preparation of photographic line-up, which testimony included a reference to a check of
Russell's second claim of error is that the trial court erred by overruling his "best evidence" objection. Although we agree that the trial court erred in its ruling, we conclude the error was harmless.
During direct examination by the State, Detective Christoff was questioned about a videotape taken from a 7-Eleven store. He testified that the tape showed Russell putting a large amount of change on the counter. Defense counsel objected to the testimony, on the basis of the best evidence rule. The court overruled the objection and allowed the testimony to be admitted.
The best evidence rule is set forth in section 90.952 of Florida Statutes (2000) as follows:
90.952 Requirement of originals.— Except as otherwise provided by statute, an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove the contents of the writing, recording, or photograph.
§ 90.952, Fla. Stat (2000). Section 90.954 of the Florida Statutes (2000) further explains that:
§ 90.954, Fla. Stat. (2000).
In McKeehan v. State, 838 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), we explained the best evidence rule as follows:
The best evidence rule, as codified by statute, requires that if the original evidence or a statutorily authorized alternative is available,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crumbley v. State
...we must examine even more closely the impermissible evidence that possibly may have influenced the verdict. DiGuilio; Russell v. State, 844 So.2d 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Hence we are not permitted to examine only the permissible evidence and determine for ourselves whether a guilty verdict......
- Thomas v. State
-
T.D.W. v. State, 4D13–117.
...that the store's surveillance video showed the defendant opening DVD boxes and putting DVDs into his pocket); Russell v. State, 844 So.2d 725, 727–28 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (finding best evidence rule violation where a detective testified that a video showed the defendant placing a large amoun......
-
Dyer v. State
...The trial court thus erred 26 So.3d 704 in admitting Beach's testimony concerning the contents of the videotape. See Russell v. State, 844 So.2d 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (finding that the trial court erred in permitting a police officer to testify about the contents of a convenience store su......
-
Documentary evidence
...a violation of the best-evidence rule. (Although the best-evidence rule was violated, the error was harmless.) Russell v. State , 844 So.2d 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Genunzio v. Genunzio In the absence of ambiguity on the face of a contract, it is well settled that the actual language used i......