Simmons v. Wainwright
| Decision Date | 16 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. Q--333,Q--333 |
| Citation | 271 So.2d 464 |
| Parties | Charles SIMMONS, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles Simmons, in pro. per.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted on September 10, 1971, of committing three crimes, viz.: Two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, and grand larceny. The following points on appeal posed by appellant are meritorious and thus the trial court erred by:
1. Unduly restricting defense counsel's right of cross-examination.
2. Permitting witnesses for the State to testify as to collateral matters which were immaterial to the issues being tried and which constituted a general attack upon the defendant's character, which had not been put in issue by him.
3. Improper argument by the State.
Voluminous testimony was adduced by the State in proof of Simmons' guilt of the offenses charged. A principal witness for the State, one Helen Lee, testified that she participated in some of the events pertaining to the crimes charged and positively identified Simmons as one of the participants. Defense counsel attempted to impeach the credibility of this witness by cross-examining her as to motive and ill feeling towards Simmons. The trial judge methodically sustained each objection on the part of the State as to defendant's attempt to cross-examine this key witness. In its brief, appellee states: 'The refusal to allow appellant to cross-examine Mrs. Helen Lee may possibly have resulted in a lack of credibility impeachment but in the light of the other testimony given by her gave the jury more than ample facts upon which to determine her interest and credibility.' It is then the contention of appellee that any error in this respect is harmless. As stated in Kirkland v. State: 1
'For the purpose of discrediting a witness, a wide range of cross-examination is permitted, as a matter of right, in regard to his motives, interest, or animus, as connected with the cause or with the parties thereto, upon which matters he may be contradicted by other evidence, * * *.' Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713 (1899).
The trial judge erred in unduly restricting the cross-examination of this witness.
The next point concerns testimony of a deputy sheriff as to appellant's possession of unusual tools on January 1, 1971. This appellant was accused of committing the instant crimes on December 19, 1970. Thus, the objected-to testimony on the part of the deputy sheriff pertained to events that transpired after the date set out in the information. This witness testified that he was a deputy sheriff of Pinellas County; that on January 1, 1971, he apprehended a vehicle at the intersection of Arlington Road and State Road 688 which was being driven by a Mr. Milton Alderman (codefendant in the instant cause) and in which defendant Simmons was a passenger. Over objection, this witness testified at great length as to certain tools he found in the apprehended vehicle, such as, a 12-foot wooden ladder, crowbars, rope, cotton gloves and a sledge hammer. The State by its brief argues that appellant urges 'this Court once again pervert the holding in Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959) as interpreted in the cases of Lucas v. State, 257 So.2d 261 (1 DCA 1972) and Reyes v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Childers v. State
...Kirkland v. State, 185 So.2d 5 (Fla.App.2d DCA 1966); Stradtman v. State, 334 So.2d 100 (Fla.App.3d DCA 1976); Simmons v. Wainwright, 271 So.2d 464 (Fla.App. 1st DCA 1973). It is a fundamental principle that matters tending to show bias or prejudice in a criminal prosecution may be inquired......
-
Boatwright v. State, 82-2033
...court of law. Hines v. State, 425 So.2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), petition for rev. denied, 430 So.2d 452 (Fla.1983); Simmons v. Wainwright, 271 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). See generally United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989, 102 S.Ct. 2269, 73 L.......
-
Marion v. State, 73--212
...such evidence has, at the most, 'borderline' relevancy. See for example Davis v. State, supra; Green v. State, supra; Simmons v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1973, 271 So.2d 464; State v. Brown, Fla.App.1972, 257 So.2d 263. The basic purpose of and the historic development behind the rule relating t......
-
Blackburn v. State, 83-98
...prosecutor belittling Blackburn's defense as an attempt to hide behind alcohol should not have been made.5 Wilson; Simmons v. Wainwright, 271 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Ailer v. State, 114 So.2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA ...