Wrobel v. State
| Decision Date | 17 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-613,81-613 |
| Citation | 410 So.2d 950 |
| Parties | Victor Valentine WROBEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, and Michael B. Jones, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Shawn L. Briese, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Appellant Wrobel was charged with trafficking in stolen property. The state moved in limine to prohibit defense counsel from asking Wrobel during direct examination whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, which Wrobel had not. The trial court granted the state's motion. The case went to the jury, and Wrobel was found guilty of dealing in stolen property. The trial court adjudged Wrobel guilty and sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment. Wrobel timely appeals.
The appellant argues that a defendant in a criminal trial has the right to introduce evidence to show his good character. This argument is based on section 90.404(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979):
Character evidence; when admissible.-
(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.-Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is inadmissible to prove that he acted in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused.-Evidence of a pertinent trait of his character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
This argument, however, omits the pertinent reference to section 90.405, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides the methods of proving character. This statute reads:
Methods of proving character.-
(1) REPUTATION.-When evidence of the character of a person or of a trait of his character is admissible, proof may be made by testimony about his reputation.
(2) SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CONDUCT.-When character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may be made of specific instances of his conduct.
In Florida, the methods of presenting character evidence is limited to testimony of reputation. Maloy v. State, 52 Fla. 101, 41 So. 791 (1906). A defendant may place in issue his general reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen. See Cornelius v. State, 49 So.2d 332 (Fla.1950).
It is clear that nothing under section 90.405 nor in the case law of Florida authorizes the defense to introduce evidence of the absence of prior criminal convictions as a substitute for reputation testimony, even when it has been pre-determined under section 90.404 that evidence of character or a trait of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyatt v. State
...(1987), specifically limits the introduction of character evidence to reputation or specific instances of conduct. Wrobel v. State, 410 So.2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So.2d 1201 (Fla.1982). This statute does not permit evidence of character to be made by opinion. See Alvarado v.......
-
State v. Garcia
...or she has never been convicted of a crime is inadmissible. See, Hendricks v. State, 281 Ala. 376, 202 So.2d 738 (1967); Wrobel v. State, 410 So.2d 950 (Fla.App.1982), review denied 419 So.2d 1201; State v. Bedker, 149 Wis.2d 257, 440 N.W.2d 802 (1989), review denied 443 N.W.2d 312. Since G......
-
O'Quinn v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., CASE NO. 6:09-cv-217-Orl-36GJK
...Fla. Stat. §§ 90.404(1)(a); § 90.405(1); see also A.K. v. State, 898 So. 2d 1112, 116-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Wrobel v. State, 410 So. 2d 950, 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). However, when an accused places his character at issue, the State is then permitted to offer evidence to rebut his assertio......
-
People v. Ortega
...never been convicted of a crime that the person is law-abiding" because "[l]awless persons may avoid convictions"]; Wrobel v. State (Fla.Ct.App. 1982) 410 So.2d 950, 951 [citing cases]; Chicago v. Lowy (Ill.Ct.App. 1976) 353 N.E.2d 208, 212 ["It is not permissible to prove good character by......
-
Pre-trial
...accident, to prevent introduction of all conversations concerning various witnesses who stopped by the police station. Wrobel v. State , 410 So.2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Hall v. Oakley , 409 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Tate v. Gray , 292 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). • Plaintiff was all......