Vural v. State
| Decision Date | 08 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2137,97-2137 |
| Citation | 717 So.2d 65 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1624 Erol VURAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mel Black, Miami, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., LEVY, J., and DAUKSCH, Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from convictions for attempted sexual battery and battery.
Appellant, a lawyer, made an after-hours appointment at his office with the victim to discuss her legal problem. After some minutes discussing the legal problem, appellant stood up, pulled the victim toward him, kissed her on the mouth and tried to place her hand on his groin. As she resisted, appellant exposed his penis and forced the victim to handle and stroke it. He then attempted to reach into her pants and touch her groin area. Finally, he tried to get his penis in her mouth. She was able to break away and leave.
Appellant raises various points in his appeal. First, he says he was denied the right to establish that the victim had a motive to lie. The purported motive involved her living with a man while claiming entitlement to welfare benefits and failing to disclose that fact on her welfare application. Appellant questioned the victim regarding this fact. The victim said the man "stayed" there but denied he lived there. Appellant asked the judge to enforce a subpoena served on the man but the judge refused. The judge said in his ruling
...[F]rankly, the issue of whether or not he lived at the Clever home prior to their marriage seems to me to be pretty solid in everybody's mind that yes, he did even though she quibbled with you as far as the terminology;...
...I mean, it's clear in this jury's mind she recognizes she faces prosecution for possible perjury by eliminating his name from the application for welfare and if you are trying to point out the issue that she is testifying or has some bias because she doesn't fear prosecution or she received some sort of a deal you established that she signed the document. You have established that she did not tell the whole truth in the document and she has pretty well established that she understands what could happen. There has been no deal and she doesn't fear prosecution. ...
It was within the sound discretion of the judge to disallow this testimony and we find no abuse of that discretion. However, even if error occurred, no reversible error occurred because the evidence against appellant was so great that this attempt at impeachment most certainly would have been ineffective to cause a different verdict.
Next, he says improper Williams Rule evidence was introduced against him. Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). Without going into the sordid details, the other women who testified about what he did to them offered classic Williams Rule evidence to show motive, common scheme and design. His activities with the others were quite similar as to time of day of the occurrences, lack of witnesses in his offices, sexual touchings and kissing, and other relevant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seagrave v. State
...back in violation of section 800.04(1) constituted sexual contact for purposes of assessing victim injury points); Vural v. State, 717 So.2d 65, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that victim injury points were properly assessed for sexual contact where defendant convicted of attempted sexual b......
-
PBR Sales, LLC v. Pezco Int'l
... ... Sangiovanni in the Diesel D2 fuel sale to PBR, nor does he ... state that Pezco ever notified PBR that it was acting in that ... broker/agent capacity when Pezco sent PBR the July 8th ... invoice for the ... ...
-
Bennett v. State
...scored 40 points for sexual contact when the appellant was convicted of attempted sexual battery. Similarly, in Vural v. State, 717 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the Third District held that the trial court erred by not imposing points for sexual contact where the appellant was convicted of ......
-
Corner v. State, 3D01-2873.
...opening statement to the jury announced that his defense was to prove that S.G. consented to the sexual encounter. In Vural v. State, 717 So.2d 65, 67 (Fla.3d DCA 1998), this court held that "no error occurs" where Williams type evidence is admitted "to refute the assertion that the victim ......