White v. Singletary

• Decision Date: 12 August 1998
• Docket Number: Nos. 98-813,97-3268,s. 98-813
• Parties: 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1868 Paul R. WHITE, Appellant, v. Harry SINGLETARY, Sec. of Florida Department of Corrections, etc., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1054

717 So.2d 1054

23 Fla. L. Weekly D1868

Paul R. WHITE, Appellant, v. Harry SINGLETARY, Sec. of Florida Department of Corrections, etc., Appellee.

Nos. 98-813, 97-3268.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Third District.

Aug. 12, 1998.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Ivy Ginsberg Shanock, Special Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Dominique T. Suite-Brown, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before JORGENSON, LEVY and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Paul R. White, the Defendant below, appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence. He contends that he was denied a fair trial through improper impeachment methods engaged in by the State during cross-examination. We agree, and thereby reverse and remand for a new trial.

The instant case arises out of an incident that occurred at the Metro-West Detention Center on March 22, 1997, out of which the Defendant was charged in a two-count information with aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer and aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. At trial, on cross-examination, the State asked the Defendant how many prior felony convictions he had. When the Defendant stated that he was unsure, the State asked whether he had three prior convictions for threatening a public servant, battery on a police officer, and resisting an officer with violence. In addition to making these statements, the State thereafter failed to introduce certified copies of the Defendant's prior convictions.

It is well-settled, under numerous appellate decisions of this State, that the appropriate method for impeaching a witness who responds incorrectly to a question regarding prior convictions is to enter a certified copy of the witnesses's prior convictions into the record. See e.g. Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280 (Fla.1976); Porter v. State, 593 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Gavins v. State, 587 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Meyers v. State, 561 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Cummings v. State, 412 So.2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Blasco v. State, 419 So.2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Williams v. State, 511 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Rommell v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 394 So.2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Even assuming the Defendant replied "incorrectly" regarding the number of prior convictions, the State properly concedes that it both erred in failing to introduce certified copies of the Defendant's prior convictions, and in specifically naming...