Walker v. State, 92-4366
| Decision Date | 07 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-4366,92-4366 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1913 Harold Lee WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James C. Banks, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Richard Parker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Harold Walker appeals his convictions and sentences for battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer with violence and reckless driving. We reverse and remand for new trial, because the court erroneously admitted prejudicial evidence of a prior incident, and do not reach the remaining points raised.
Deputy Sheriff James McQuaig testified that on May 4, 1992, Walker led him on a high-speed car chase, then attacked and fought him until other law enforcement officers arrived on the scene. Walker took the stand and admitted driving ten miles per hour over the speed limit, but said that it was McQuaig who attacked him. When asked whether he charged the officer, Walker replied:
I mean I found that to be so absurd I wanted to laugh when I heard him say it this morning, you know. And I have one statement, you know what I mean, that will rebuff [sic ] that. You know, I'm a black man. This is a white cop. This is at Lively [Vocational Tech] at 2:30 in the morning, and no black man is going to challenge a white cop with a pistol in his hand at that time of the morning.
On cross-examination, the state immediately asked Walker whether he had ever before encountered any problems with law enforcement. Over Walker's objection, the court permitted an answer to the question, commenting that Walker had opened the door to such questioning and characterized the situation as involving a "poor black man with a white cop with a gun." Walker then denied having any problems with law enforcement.
After the defense rested, the court permitted the state on rebuttal to call Officer Kevin Guimaraes, who testified that approximately two weeks before the incident in question, when he and another police officer were attempting to arrest Walker at a convenience store, Walker resisted with violence and had to be subdued by five officers. The trial court did not permit Walker to offer surrebuttal evidence to the above testimony. We conclude the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of the prior incident.
In defense of the court's admission of the rebuttal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willis v. State, 94-2951
...where police officer revealed that defendant had "an arrest record and was recently released from prison"); cf. Walker v. State, 642 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (reversing where prosecutor asked defendant, over objection, if he had ever had any problems with law enforcement, defendant sai......
-
Allred v. State, 93-736
...not put his character in issue, this testimony would have been improper. Heuring v. State, 513 So.2d 122 (Fla.1987); Walker v. State, 642 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Weitz v. State, 510 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (reversing a conviction where testimony of collateral acts did not impe......
-
Muff v. State, 98-1948.
...to put before the jury a 1981 conviction for dealing in stolen property, deprived appellant of a fair trial. See Walker v. State, 642 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Martin v. State, 411 So.2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Appellant's testimony on direct examination offered a rationale for why he......