State v. Wilson, s. 86-7
| Decision Date | 14 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | 86-116,Nos. 86-7,s. 86-7 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Ivory WILSON, Appellee. Ivory WILSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Debora J. Turner and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Mark S. Sussman, Certified Legal Intern, for appellant/appellee The State of Florida.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee/appellant Ivory Wilson.
Before BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
Two issues are presented by the defendant in these appeals from a conviction, on a jury verdict, for second-degree murder: (1) whether the constitutional right to a fair trial was denied by a refusal of a request to use hypothetical questions in inquiring of prospective jurors their willingness to accept a defense of self-defense, (2) whether a fair trial right was denied by the court's ruling in limine that the state would be permitted to impeach, with evidence of a specific act of violence, defense character witnesses who attested to the defendant's reputation for peacefulness. By cross-appeal the State challenges the court's downward departure from the sentencing guidelines.
We affirm the first point in the main appeal on the authority of Pope v. State, 84 Fla. 428, 94 So. 865 (1922), and Dicks v. State, 83 Fla. 717, 93 So. 137 (1922), and affirm the cross-appeal on the authority of State v. Bentley, 475 So.2d 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Point two of the main appeal merits discussion.
Wilson was tried and convicted by a jury for the fatal stabbing of his brother-in-law. He testified that he acted in self-defense after an argument between the two intoxicated men escalated into physical violence. Included on the list of defense witnesses were several persons who were to testify about the defendant's general reputation in the community. A motion in limine was heard regarding the permissible scope of the State's impeachment of defense character witnesses. Appellant asked for a ruling whether the State could cross-examine the character witnesses by asking whether they had heard that the defendant stabbed his wife to death twenty-five years before this trial. The trial court ruled that if the character witnesses testified concerning appellant's reputation for peacefulness the State, in accordance with section 90.405(2), Florida Statutes (1985), could cross-examine them about specific instances of appellant's prior violent conduct. On that ruling a decision was made by the defendant not to present character evidence.
Appellant contends that the cross-examination of character witnesses is limited to questions regarding the reputation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Raydo
...did not elect to testify in this cause and the said impeachment evidence was never introduced below." See also State v. Wilson, 509 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(adopting Luce in holding that a claim of improper impeachment of character witnesses was not preserved for review where the defen......
-
State v. Romar
...witnesses about his prior bad acts when the defendant elected not to call the character witnesses at trial); State v. Wilson, 509 So.2d 1281, 1281-82 (Fla.App.1987) ¶ 10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant's convictions and sentences. CONCURRING: MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge and MICHAE......
-
Parker v. State, 89-1550
...in limine rulings would result in automatic reversal thus emasculating the doctrine of harmless error. Luce; State v. Wilson, 509 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); but see Hall v. Oakley, 409 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 419 So.2d 1200 (Fla.1982). 2 Accordingly, we affirm the ......
-
Smith v. Com., Record No. 3017-02-3.
...to testify as to his truthfulness, he waived his right to complain of the trial court's ruling on appeal. Accord State v. Wilson, 509 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla.Ct.App.1987). Accordingly, we Affirmed. 1. Moore denied being a drug user. 2. However, during the sentencing phase of trial, Smith call......