CopyCited 111 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1992 WL 289664
...No, all of the incidents happened within a year and a couple of months, I believe. Over objection, the State was permitted to go into the details of the prior convictions. *791 Certified copies of the federal convictions were later admitted without objection. Under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1989), a party may attack the credibility of any witness, including the accused, by evidence of a prior felony conviction....
CopyCited 91 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1988 WL 26245
...ice and giving false information. The trial court sustained the state's objection and informed defense counsel that he could ask whether Jacobs had ever been convicted of a felony or a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, as provided under section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1985). Section 90.610(1) provides: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law und...
CopyCited 83 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1989 WL 140400
...Brumley had not been charged nor convicted of any crime during Delap’s first or second trials. Brumley was not indicted until late 1981, well after Delap’s October 1978 second trial. Therefore, his illegal activities would not be admissible as a prior criminal conviction under Fla.Stat. § 90.610....
CopyCited 59 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2002 WL 1448825
...viction" in the Predator Act and the definition in the sentencing statute. [10] Several courts have noted that under Florida's evidence code, adjudications of delinquency, unlike certain types of convictions, cannot be used to impeach witnesses. See § 90.610(1)(b), Fla....
CopyCited 58 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2004 WL 1403190
...However, he says that counsel advised him that if he testified, the details of his prior record could be placed before the jury. In reality, the State would only be able to bring out the number of the defendant's prior convictions, but not the details. See § 90.610, Fla....
CopyCited 42 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 45
...rations of impartiality. Accordingly, we find no merit in this issue. Mills claims in his third point that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon the prosecutor's cross-examination concerning his prior convictions. See § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 37 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2004 WL 2797213
...the State had no recourse against the witnesses if they committed perjury. A. APPLICABLE LAW Section
90.608(2), Florida Statutes (2001), states that a party may attack the credibility of a witness by showing that the witness is biased. Additionally, section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2001), provides that "[a] party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted...." Importantly, section
90.610(3) explicitly provides that the admissibility of evidence under section
90.608 is not affected by the limitations contained in section
90.610(1). In Fulton v. State,
335 So.2d 280, 284 (Fla.1976), a case concerning section
90.610(1), the Court stated: When there has been a prior conviction, only the fact of the conviction can be brought out, unless the witness denies the conviction....
...And, in fact, my office, my coworkers, prosecuted you for each and every one of those felonies, didn't we? A. Yes. Q. And we are currently responsible for you serving a life sentence right now? The defense objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing that under section 90.610(1), the State could only introduce as impeachment evidence the number of felony convictions not the length of a sentence served....
CopyCited 35 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1991 WL 77647
...n admissible and, therefore, is not "material." See Delap,
890 F.2d at 298-99. A witness can be impeached by, among other things, showing that the witness is biased or by proving that the witness has been convicted of a crime. [4] §§
90.608(1)(b),
90.610(1), Fla....
...[3] Breedlove's trial took place between Feb. 27 and Mar. 5, 1979, with adjudication and sentencing on Apr. 2, 1979. [4] Such crime must be "punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year" or must involve "dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment." § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 34 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2004 WL 2755802
...McLaughlin ed., 2d ed.2002). We agree with the First and Fourth Districts on that point of law. Under section
90.806(1), a hearsay declarant is treated as a "witness" and his or her credibility may be attacked in the same manner as any other witness's credibility. In turn, section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2002), provides in pertinent part that "[a] party may attack the credibility of any witness ......
...Section
90.403 provides that relevant evidence is inadmissible if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." The general principle behind section
90.610, Florida Statutes (2002), which permits the use of convictions for impeachment purposes under certain circumstances, supports the conclusion that the fact of Huggins' prior felony convictions had probative value regarding the credibility of the hearsay statement attributed to him....
...by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness." A nontestifying hearsay declarant has not been given the opportunity to admit or deny the prior conviction, a prerequisite to introduction of the record of the conviction against a witness under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2004)....
...State,
587 So.2d 487, 489-90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). See generally McArthur v. Cook,
99 So.2d 565, 567 (Fla.1957) ("[T]he proper procedural approach is simply to ask the witness the straight-forward question as to whether he had ever been convicted of a crime."); §
90.610, Fla....
...the witness's willingness to disregard the oath to tell the truth. See Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 610.1, at 519 (2003 ed.). This rationale does not apply when the "testimony" being impeached is a hearsay statement not made under oath. Section 90.610(1) further provides that a "party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused," with the witness's prior criminal record....
...ever, the first sentence of that section provides that a hearsay declarant's credibility may be attacked "by any evidence that would be admissible ... if the declarant had testified as a witness." That provision clearly implicates the application of section 90.610, which allows the admission of prior convictions of certain crimes to attack the credibility of a witness....
CopyCited 33 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 445
...rneys. Appellant next contends that he was not allowed to question Murray about a "false statement" arrest which occurred three years prior to this trial that appeared on Murray's "rap sheet." The document did not show the disposition of the charge. Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1983) *141 allows a party to impeach a witness with evidence showing that the witness was convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement....
CopyCited 29 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 609
...horey concerning the details of the prior homicide. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by permitting this questioning. We agree. Preliminarily, neither party disputes that a witness may be impeached by reference to a prior conviction. See § 90.610, Fla....
CopyCited 28 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...This cause is before the Court on petition for review of a district court of appeal decision, Page v. State,
436 So.2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The district court certified the following question as one of great public importance: WHETHER THE STATE IS PREVENTED BY SECTION
90.610(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1981), FROM IMPEACHING A DEFENDANT BY USE OF A PRIOR PETIT THEFT CONVICTION WITHOUT SHOWING THAT SUCH CRIME INVOLVES SOME ELEMENT OF DECEIT, UNTRUTHFULNESS, OR FALSIFICATION BEARING UPON THE DEFENDANT'S CAPACITY TO TESTIFY TRUTHFULLY....
...de evidence of two prior petit theft convictions offered by the state to impeach Page. In denying the motion the trial court ruled that all petit thefts are crimes of "dishonesty" and, therefore, admissible for purposes of impeachment pursuant to subsection 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....
...In Hall the first district held that a conviction for petit theft may not be used for impeachment purposes unless the prosecution demonstrates that the crime involved some element of deceit, untruthfulness, or falsification bearing upon the witness' capacity to testify truthfully. [1] Subsection 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1981), reads: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1...
...*815 Prior to the adoption of the new evidence code in Florida, a witness could be impeached with evidence of a conviction of any crime, excluding certain minor offenses such as traffic infractions. See Hendrick v. Strazzulla,
135 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1961). With the advent of the new code subsection
90.610(1) was drafted so as to limit crimes admissible for impeachment purposes to those involving "dishonesty or false statement." Subsection
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1977), as originally drafted read: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or a false statement, wit...
...* * * * The drafters intended to include theft-related offenses within the definition of crimes involving "dishonest or false statement". See C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 610.1 at 186 (1977). In 1978, however, the Florida Legislature amended subsection 90.610(1) to substantially conform to the language of Federal Rule of Evidence 609. The First District Court of Appeal interpreted this amendment as evidencing the intention by the legislature to negate the intent of the draftees and accord subsection 90.610(1) a construction similar to that given its model in the federal courts. Federal rule 609 requires the prosecution to demonstrate that the misdemeanor petit theft involved some element of deceitfulness, untruthfulness, or falsification before the conviction can be admissible for impeachment purposes. In construing subsection 90.610(1), as amended in 1978, the first district in Hall sought to discover what the legislature intended to constitute a crime of "dishonesty or false statement." Article V, section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution grants to this Court the power to "adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts." Subsection 90.610(1), dealing with the use of prior convictions for the purpose of impeachment, clearly falls within the realm of "procedure." To avoid a constitutional attack on the evidence code and recognizing that matters of court procedure are the...
...[2] It is our view that the commission of petit theft, or any other offense falling within the scope of chapter 812, Florida Statutes (1981), [3] necessarily involves "dishonesty" so as to bring any conviction for such a crime within the scope of subsection 90.610(1)....
...[A]ny misdemeanor, which has as its basis lying, cheating, deceiving, or stealing, bears a reasonable relation to testimonial deceit and should be admissible for impeachment purposes. People v. Spates, 77 Ill.2d 193, 204, 32 Ill.Dec. 333, 395 N.E.2d 563, 569 (1979). As the state has pointed out, subsection 90.610(1) refers to crimes involving "dishonesty *816 or false statement." To restrict the rule's application only to those offenses which evidence an element of affirmative misstatement or misrepresentation of fact would be to ignore the pla...
...r trust, as lying, deceiving, cheating, stealing, or defrauding..." Id. at 203, 32 Ill.Dec. at 338, 395 N.E.2d at 568 (emphasis supplied). An added reason for our ruling is our concern with the fact that acceptance of the narrow interpretation of subsection 90.610(1) advanced by the first district in Hall would result in the cumbersome procedure of conducting a "trial within a trial" to determine whether some form of affirmative misstatement or misrepresentation of fact was involved in the commission of the crime....
..., and the power of this Court to determine which crimes involve "dishonesty or false statement" for the purpose of impeachment. I believe that the majority's perception is faulty in each of these. There is some evidence in the legislative history of section 90.610 that the intention may have been that theft-related misdemeanors are not necessarily included for the purpose of impeachment....
...opinion. I would affirm the Second District Court's opinion and approve Hall on this point. SHAW, J., concurs. NOTES [1] The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Rivers v. State,
423 So.2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), agreed with Hall 's interpretation of §
90.610(1)....
CopyCited 25 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2009 Fla. LEXIS 405, 2009 WL 702262
...The credibility of a witness may be attacked "by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment." § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 22 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...ty by asking the witness about previous convictions of any crime, and the number of criminal convictions. § 90.08, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1978); Goodman v. State,
336 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Mead *438 v. State,
86 So.2d 773 (Fla. 1956). However, Section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 1979, governs this case....
...If the witness denies a conviction, the prosecution can impeach him by introducing a certified record of that conviction, which will necessarily reveal the nature of the crime. Goodman, supra; Irvin v. State,
324 So.2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The enactment of Section
90.610(1) does not affect the rules governing the elicitation of the nature of a prior conviction....
...r of convictions of such crimes. We agree with the First District Court of Appeal that the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" will cover crimes punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. However, the second part of Section 90.610(1) presents a more difficult problem....
...A defendant may not know which crimes involve dishonesty or false statements and may open the door to disclosure of certain crimes by failing to acknowledge the number of such convictions or create the impression of a pattern of criminal conduct by including crimes not cognizable by Section 90.610(1)....
...Therefore it may be appropriate for the trial court upon request of either counsel to instruct the witness out of the presence of the jury as to the types of crime which involve dishonesty or false statements. We hold that as a predicate to impeachment under Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1979), two questions may be asked: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" and "Have you ever been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement?" Accordingly, the form of the prosecutor's question was improper and this case must be remanded for a new trial....
CopyCited 21 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 534733
...e witness by: (1) Introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness's present testimony. (2) Showing that the witness is biased. (3) Attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of §
90.609 or §
90.610....
CopyCited 21 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 641813
...at decision will not be overturned absent a showing of an abuse o[f] discretion." Traina v. State,
657 So.2d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The authority to impeach a witness through the use of prior criminal convictions is found in Florida Statute section
90.610(1) which provides: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment, .... §
90.610(1), Fla....
...The matter may not be pursued to the point of naming the crime." Kyle v. State,
650 So.2d 127, 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). An exception to the general rule occurs when a defendant opens the door to a broader inquiry. [3] In Fotopoulos v. State,
608 So.2d 784 (Fla. 1992) our supreme court ruled: Under section
90.610, Florida Statutes (1989), a party may attack the credibility of any witness, including the accused, by evidence of a prior felony conviction....
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 24
...any adverse implications." McArthur v. Cook,
99 So.2d 565, 567 (Fla. 1957). Based on these and other authorities, the district court observed: Thus, when a criminal defendant is impeached by the disclosure on cross-examination of prior convictions, §
90.610, Fla....
...Nor do the provisions on evidence of character or traits of character appear to pertain to the testimony here in question. §§
90.404-.405, Fla. Stat. (1983). This was purely offered as rehabilitation following (or, in this case, in anticipation of) impeachment made pursuant to section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
... (1) Any party, except the party calling the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness by: (a) Introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with his present testimony. (b) Showing that the witness is biased. (c) Attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of s.
90.609 or s.
90.610....
...is allowed under section
90.608(1)(d), and evidence of the witness' general immoral character is allowed under
90.608(1)(c) but limited to evidence of the witness' reputation for untruthfulness by section
90.609 or evidence of a prior conviction by section
90.610....
CopyCited 19 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1989 WL 61547
...xcluded. Cf. Washington v. State,
432 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1983) (trial court properly excluded evidence that state witness had been dismissed from sheriff's department for writing bad checks and had dealt in stolen firearms). Further, and more important, section
90.610, Florida Statutes (1985), directs that a witness's credibility may be impeached only by convictions of crimes involving dishonesty or false statements....
CopyCited 19 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1998 WL 333429
...State,
696 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), which expressly and directly conflicts with Parker v. State,
563 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The conflict issue is whether, when a defendant does not testify, a ruling regarding impeachment of a defendant pursuant to section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1995), is preserved for review....
...r Sixth Amendment [4] to the United States *1000 Constitution. See Galindo v. Ylst,
971 F.2d 1427, 1429 (9th Cir.1992); State v. Brown, 113 Wash.2d 520, 782 P.2d 1013, 1024 (1989). A trial court's ruling on an impeachment issue, such as the scope of section
90.610(1) impeachment, that might influence a defendant not to testify does not amount to a constitutional violation, unless the subject of the ruling itself has constitutional implications. Because we have not found section
90.610(1) to be an unconstitutional infringement on a defendant's right to testify, see Johnson, a trial court's ruling on a section
90.610(1) issue, even if erroneous, does not rise to an unconstitutional infringement on the right to testify. The issue before us is in this case is evidentiary whether a nolo contendere plea can be used to impeach a defendant's credibility under section
90.610(1)....
...bt about the precise form the impeachment question should take. For all the policy reasons governing principles of appellate review, we adopt the reasoning of Luce. In this case, Raydo failed to preserve his claim of improper impeachment pursuant to section 90.610(1) when he did not testify and when the impeachment evidence was never introduced....
..." The difficulty the trial court faced in phrasing the question highlights the problem with using a nolo contendere plea where there has been no disposition. Generally, the credibility of a testifying defendant or witness may be attacked pursuant to section 90.610(1) only by prior convictions. [6] Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1995), entitled "Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment," sets forth that: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or false statement regardless of the punishment.... § 90.610(1)(emphasis added). To resolve the precise issue in this case, we need not reach a decision as to the scope of the term "conviction" pursuant to section 90.610(1)....
...is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding." (Emphasis added). This specific section of the Evidence Code prohibiting nolo contendere pleas from being admitted into evidence takes precedence over the more general impeachment provisions of section 90.610(1)....
...other subjects in more general terms."). A defendant entering a plea of nolo contendere does not admit guilt. Further, at sentencing a trial court might decide to withhold adjudication. If adjudication is withheld, there would be no conviction under section 90.610(1). We thus approve this portion of Raydo and hold that a defendant's nolo contendere plea, without a conviction entered on that plea, is not admissible to attack a defendant's credibility pursuant to section 90.610(1)....
...huge disagreements with everything." [2] In Parker v. State,
563 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), the issue was whether a jury verdict of guilt in a prior trial without court adjudication constitutes a conviction for impeachment purposes pursuant to section
90.610(1). See infra note 7. [3] Section 90.08, Fla. Stat. (1975), the statute at issue in Johnson v. State,
380 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1979), is the predecessor to section
90.610, Florida Statutes (1995). "In 1977, the Florida Evidence Code was enacted and section
90.610 replaced that part of section 90.08 relating to evidence of prior convictions." Bobb v....
...[4] The right to testify is also grounded in the compulsory process clause of the Sixth Amendment, which grants a defendant the right to call "witnesses in his favor." See Rock v. Arkansas,
483 U.S. 44, 52,
107 S.Ct. 2704,
97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987). [5] In addition, section
90.610(1) is modeled on and substantially similar to Federal Rule 609(a)....
...[6] A witness may be subject to cross-examination concerning whether pending criminal charges influenced a witness's cooperation with the state. See Breedlove v. State,
580 So.2d 605, 607-08 (Fla.1991); Livingston v. State,
678 So.2d 895, 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In this circumstance, the impeachment would not be pursuant to section
90.610(1), but pursuant to section
90.608(2), Florida Statutes (1995). [7] We note the disagreement among the districts as to the scope of the term "conviction" for section
90.610(1) impeachment. In Raydo v. State,
696 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the First District distinguished cases that interpreted the term "conviction" under section
90.610(1) to include both a jury verdict of guilt and a plea of guilty, even though there had been no adjudication....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 541, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1577, 2009 WL 3029662
...ed against the State based on his conviction. We agree with Jackson that the State improperly impeached Wallace with evidence of the exact nature of his prior conviction but conclude that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Pursuant to section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2007), a party can attack the credibility of a witness by introducing evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement. See § 90.610, Fla....
...witness by showing that the witness is biased. Generally speaking, however, evidence of the specific nature of the conviction would not establish bias, and allowing inquiry as to the specific nature of the charge would circumvent the prohibitions of section 90.610....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 28 A.L.R. 4th 642
...It has long been the rule in Florida that a witness may be impeached by evidence of his prior convictions. E.g., Roberson v. State,
40 Fla. 509,
24 So. 474 (1899); § 90.08, Fla. Stat. (1977), repealed by Ch. *483 76-237, § 2, Laws of Fla. This has been codified in the Florida Evidence Code as section
90.610, Florida Statutes (1981), which reads: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in exce...
...Vanderbosch,
610 F.2d 95 (2d Cir.1979); United States v. Duncan,
598 F.2d 839 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
444 U.S. 871,
100 S.Ct. 148,
62 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979); United States v. Rose,
526 F.2d 745 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied,
425 U.S. 905,
96 S.Ct. 1497,
47 L.Ed.2d 755 (1976). While section
90.610 of the Florida Evidence Code is not the same as rule 609 in all particulars, that portion of the section now under consideration is identical with its federal counterpart....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...conviction was for the crime of perjury, may be given to affect the credibility of the said witness, and such conviction may be proved by questioning the proposed witness, or if he deny it, by producing a record of his conviction. [Emphasis added.] Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which he was convicted ....
...Neither statute permits the elicitation of the nature of the crime, because any additional light on his credibility would not compensate for the possible prejudicial effect on the minds of the jurors. See, e.g., Davis v. State,
397 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) [construing Section
90.610; Goodman v....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1991 WL 88737
...The convictions were: solicitation of perjury, which occurred in 1974; involuntary manslaughter and negligent bodily harm connected with a 1972 automobile accident; grand theft of an automobile stolen in 1966; and forgery, which occurred in 1973. Riechmann argues that the evidence was inadmissible under sections
90.610 [13] and
90.403 [14] of the Florida Statutes (1987). We find merit in one of Riechmann's claims. A foreign conviction may be admitted for impeachment in a Florida court, pursuant to section
90.610(1), provided the accused has not shown evidence of a lack of fairness in the foreign justice system....
...denied,
434 U.S. 986,
98 S.Ct. 614,
54 L.Ed.2d 481 (1977); United States v. Rossi,
219 F.2d 612, 616 (2d Cir.), cert. denied,
349 U.S. 938,
75 S.Ct. 782,
99 L.Ed. 1266 (1955). Riechmann's convictions of solicitation of perjury and forgery were admissible under section
90.610(1) as crimes of false statement or dishonesty. So too was the grand theft charge. See State v. Page,
449 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1984) (crimes involving theft are crimes of dishonesty under section
90.610(1))....
...f imprisonment under German law. Nonetheless, the trial court ruled the conviction admissible, saying, "In this country it is a felony. We'll consider it a felony because of this country." The trial court misapplied the clear and express language of section 90.610(1), which provides that the offense must be punishable "by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which he was convicted. " § 90.610(1), Fla....
...e of discretion in admitting the manslaughter conviction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with the principles announced in State v. DiGuilio,
491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). The remaining three convictions were admissible pursuant to section
90.610....
...a jury to consider as any proof of guilt), cert. denied,
475 U.S. 1098,
106 S.Ct. 1499,
89 L.Ed.2d 900 (1986). Once the objection was sustained, however, Riechmann did not move to strike the remark, for a special instruction, or for a mistrial. [13] Section
90.610 of the Florida Statutes (1987) provides:
90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment....
...-party benefits is inadmissible. [15] Riechmann made no suggestion that the foreign convictions were unfair. [16] In Alvarez v. State,
467 So.2d 455, 456-57 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied,
476 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1985), the court said in dicta that, under section
90.610(1), trial courts may determine whether or not crimes committed in foreign jurisdictions would be felonies if committed in Florida....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2000 WL 1675950
...See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We granted review to resolve the conflict among the district courts of appeal on the issue of whether a plea of guilty without an adjudication of guilt constitutes a prior "conviction" for purposes of impeachment under section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1997), of the Florida Evidence Code. BACKGROUND Respondent Gregory McFadden was charged with a domestic battery offense. At trial, in an attempt to impeach McFadden's credibility, the State sought to introduce evidence under the authority of section 90.610(1) that McFadden previously had pled guilty to a separate aggravated battery charge involving the same victim....
...On appeal, the Third District reversed McFadden's conviction, concluding that "there should have been no reference whatever to the previous case because withholding adjudication simply does not result in the defendant's having been `convicted' of an offense as is required to impeach a witness under section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1997)." McFadden,
732 So.2d at 413....
...The Third District also determined that the "basic error" in allowing the impeachment was "compounded" and new errors created when the trial court allowed the State to point out both the precise nature of the charge to which McFadden had pled guilty and the identity of the victim. Id. at 414. ANALYSIS Section 90.610(1), which is the specific part of the Evidence Code governing impeachment by a prior conviction provides: 90.610....
...ty or not guilty." Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.650. Where a person is adjudicated guilty by a trial court, there is no question that a defendant or witness could subsequently be impeached by that prior conviction so long as the other necessary requirements of section 90.610 are satisfied....
...See also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.670. [2] Given this framework, the question becomes whether an adjudication of guilt by the court or a final judgment of conviction is required in order to constitute a conviction *1212 for purposes of impeachment pursuant to section
90.610(1). Although this Court has never squarely addressed the issue, in State v. Raydo,
713 So.2d 996, 1001 (Fla. 1998), we stated, albeit in dicta, that if at sentencing "adjudication is withheld, there would be no conviction under section
90.610(1)." Consistent with this view, the Third District in this case held that there can be no impeachment by a prior conviction where there had been a guilty plea but adjudication was withheld....
...In Johnson, the First District addressed the issue of whether a witness could be impeached with a prior plea of guilty where the court had not yet adjudicated the witness guilty.
449 So.2d at 922-23. The First District agreed with Barber that the witness could be impeached pursuant to section
90.610 even though adjudication had not yet taken place....
...t or guilty plea where adjudication has been withheld, there is actual conflict on the broader question of whether a guilty verdict or plea of guilty without an adjudication of guilt constitutes a prior "conviction" for purposes of impeachment under section 90.610. Therefore, because of the continued conflict and confusion over the issue, we now address whether an adjudication of guilt by the trial court is required in order for a witness to be impeached *1213 with a prior "conviction" under section 90.610(1). [4] The key to our analysis is the definition to be given to the term "conviction" as used in section 90.610(1) of the Florida Evidence Code. Section 90.610 does not define the term "conviction" for purposes of impeaching a witness. As this Court has determined, section 90.610(1) involves a matter of court procedure solely within the province of this Court to enact pursuant to article V, section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution....
...State,
647 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see generally In re Florida Evidence Code,
372 So.2d 1369, 1369 (Fla.1979). It is therefore this Court's responsibility to determine what constitutes a prior "conviction" for purposes of impeachment under section
90.610(1) consistent with the limited purpose for which convictions have been historically admissible. See Page,
449 So.2d at 815; Bobb,
647 So.2d at 884. The appellate courts and this Court agree that if a trial court withholds adjudication there can be no prior conviction under section
90.610(1)....
...Regardless of whether a defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty by a jury, until the defendant is actually adjudicated guilty, the court still has the discretion to withhold adjudication pursuant to section
948.01(2) and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.670. In the absence of a definition of "conviction" in section
90.610(1), it is appropriate to resort to prior case law....
...le with a canceled, suspended or revoked driver's license, to include both adjudicated prior offenses and offenses in which adjudication was withheld.
763 So.2d at 290. For purposes of impeaching a witness with a prior conviction under section *1216
90.610(1), however, we find no basis to deviate from the definition of conviction most consistently used by this Court, which requires a judgment of the court adjudicating the defendant guilty. "[S]ince the evidence code was adopted by the Florida Supreme Court as a rule of court, it is safe to assume that the court itself was aware of its prior definition" when it adopted section
90.610(1)....
...enacted section
90.601(1). Roberts,
450 So.2d at 1127 (Anstead, C.J., concurring specially). Therefore, until the time that adjudication occurs and a judgment of conviction is entered, a defendant or witness is not subject to impeachment pursuant to section
90.610(1) of the Evidence Code. Finally, a definition of "conviction" under section
90.610(1) that encompasses an adjudication by the court or final judgment of conviction is consistent with the limited purpose for which convictions have been historically admissible....
...The Fourth District explained the limited nature of the use of convictions for impeachment in Bobb: The sole purpose of impeachment by prior convictions is to attack credibility or believability of the witness. As noted by Charles Erhardt in his comments to section 90.610 of the evidence code, the theory supporting the admissibility of a wide variety of convictions is that "a person with a criminal record has demonstrated a willingness to violate the law, which bears upon the person's willingness to dis...
...[7] Therefore, it is the adjudication of guilt or the judgment of conviction that becomes essential to utilizing a prior crime as a "conviction" to challenge a testifying witness's present credibility. Accordingly, for purposes of impeachment under section 90.610(1), we adopt a definition of "conviction" that requires an adjudication of guilt or judgment of conviction by the trial court....
...This definition also provides a uniform and consistent meaning to the term within the same section of the Florida Evidence Code. Unless there is a final judgment of conviction or an adjudication of guilt, the defendant or witness may not be impeached with evidence of a guilty plea or jury verdict pursuant to section 90.610(1). THIS CASE In this case, it was error for the trial court to allow McFadden to be impeached pursuant to section 90.610(1) when he had not been adjudicated guilty of the prior offense....
...[3] The Fifth District's statement in Parker v. State,
563 So.2d 1130, 1131-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), however, was dicta. [4] As we explained in State v. Raydo,
713 So.2d 996, 1001 n. 7 (Fla.1998): We note the disagreement among the districts as to the scope of the term "conviction" for section
90.610(1) impeachment. In Raydo v. State,
696 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the First District distinguished cases that interpreted the term "conviction" under section
90.610(1) to include both a jury verdict of guilt and a plea of guilty, even though there had been no adjudication....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 86180
...uthority conferred on the Florida Supreme Court by article V, section 2(a)"). The supreme court has stated that a particular provision of the Evidence Code is a procedural measure. In State v. Page,
449 So.2d 813, 815 (Fla.1984), the court said, "Subsection
90.610(1), dealing with the use of prior convictions for the purpose of impeachment, clearly falls within the realm of `procedure.'" Subsection
90.610(1) had previously been approved and adopted by the court as a rule of evidence to the extent the statutory provision was procedural....
...tution it is [the court's] sole responsibility to determine which crimes involve `dishonesty or false statement' for the purpose of impeachment." The Page court did not provide any guidance concerning the basis on which it had chosen to characterize section
90.610(1) as procedural rather than substantive. See also State v. McFadden,
772 So.2d 1209, 1213 (Fla.2000) (relying on Page's characterization of section
90.610(1) as procedural to support conclusion that it is the "[c]ourt's responsibility to determine what constitutes a prior `conviction' for purposes of impeachment under section
90.610(1)")....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Prior to adoption of the new evidence code, a witness could be impeached with evidence of a conviction of any crime, excluding minor offenses such as traffic infractions. See Hendrick v. Strazzula,
135 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1961). This position was consonant with §
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1977), as it read at that time: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness had been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, with the following exceptions ......
...it intended the rule to apply only to the commission of crimes which involved some element of deceit, untruthfulness, or falsification. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 610.1, pp. 185-6 (1977). In the next session of the Florida Legislature, however, § 90.610(1) was amended to conform identically with Federal Rule of Evidence 609: A party may attack the credibility of any witness including the accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which he was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or false statement regardless of the punishment, with the following exceptions ... § 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1978)....
...untruthfulness, or falsification bearing upon the accused's propensity to testify truthfully. *97 Conf.Rep.No. 93-1597 to accompany H.R. 5463, P.L. 93-595, at p. 9, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1974, pp. 7051, 7103. When a statute is amended, as was § 90.610(1) in 1978, we may assume in the absence of contrary indication that the legislature intended the amended statute to have a meaning different from that accorded to it before the amendment....
...PERC,
353 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In light of these principles of statutory construction and the uniform construction given to Federal Rule of Evidence 609 by the federal courts, we can only conclude that the Florida Legislature intended a like interpretation for §
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1978)....
...This cause is REMANDED to the Duval County Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. THOMPSON, J., dissents with opinion. THOMPSON, Judge, dissenting. I would affirm. I think petit theft is a crime involving dishonesty within the meaning of § 90.610, Fla. Stat., necessarily involving some trick, fraud, or false pretense. Section 90.610, Florida Statutes, is patterned after Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence....
...1st DCA 1980). Theft is the act of stealing. The common and ordinary meaning of stealing is to take dishonestly or wrongfully and secretly property belonging to another. Accordingly, I think petit theft is a crime involving dishonesty within the meaning of § 90.610, Fla....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 91, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 519, 2011 WL 722374
...Dugger,
734 So.2d 1009, 1017 (Fla.1999) (quoting Phillip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 9.6, at 155 (2d ed.1997)). ANALYSIS To begin, Pantoja argues that the victim’s prior accusation against her uncle should have been admitted under section
90.610, Florida Statutes (2002), because there is a false reporting exception to section
90.610’s criminal conviction requirement. We disagree. Section
90.610 provides: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law un...
...of the conviction from which the appeal was taken or for which the pardon was granted inadmissible. Evidence of the pendency of the appeal is admissible. (3) Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence under s.
90.404 or s.
90.608. §
90.610, Fla. Stat. (2002). “[T]he Legislature adopted the express wording of section
90.610, Florida Statutes, in an effort to bar all character impeachment based on prior misconduct that did not involve a criminal conviction. The plain language of section
90.610, Florida Statutes, authorizes impeachment with only prior convictions .......
...d construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.” Holly v. Auld,
450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984) (quoting A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey,
102 Fla. 1141 ,
137 So. 157, 159 (1931)). The Florida Legislature’s intent regarding section
90.610 is clear....
...While Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) permits character impeachment through prior misconduct without a criminal conviction requirement, Florida’s Legislature adopted our evidence code without this language. See Roebuck,
953 So.2d at 43 . Professor Charles Eh-rhardt distinguished section
90.610 from Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b): Occasionally decisions ignore the limitation and permit impeachment with prior acts of misconduct of a witness when they involve prior false accusations of a crime by the witness....
...ecause it did not reflect the existing Florida law and because they felt the possibility for abuse of this type of evidence was great. Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 610.8 (2010 ed.). We agree with the First District’s determination that section 90.610 does not permit an exception to the conviction requirement for prior false accusations....
...The only proper inquiry into a witness’s *1097 character for impeachment purposes goes to the witness’s reputation for truth and veracity.” Fernandez v. State,
730 So.2d 277, 282 (Fla.1999). In so holding, we have explained, “Allowing this testimony would violate sections
90.608,
90.609, and
90.610, Florida Statutes (1998), which prohibit impeachment by reference to specific bad acts other than convictions for felonies or misdemeanors involving dishonesty.” Fernandez,
730 So.2d at 282-83 . In accordance with this, we have repeatedly interpreted section
90.610 to permit impeachment of a witness’s credibility only by felony conviction or by a conviction involving a crime of dishonesty or false statement....
...State,
569 So.2d 425, 429 (Fla.1990); Jackson v. State,
545 So.2d 260, 264 (Fla.1989); Hitchcock v. State,
413 So.2d 741, 744 (Fla.1982); Fulton v. State,
335 So.2d 280, 284 (Fla.1976). Accordingly, we approve the First District’s decision in Pantoja , holding that section
90.610 does not permit impeachment of a witness with evidence of a prior accusation that did not result in a criminal conviction....
...It is a rare occurrence that character is an essential element of a claim! or defense. “Were this court to expand the narrow application of section
90.405(2)’s character at issue provision to all cases in which the veracity of a witness is pertinent to the proceedings, section
90.610’s confinement of impeachment evidence to only prior convictions would be rendered ‘meaningless.” Roebuck,
953 So.2d at 44 ....
...for impeachment under section
90.608(2). However, there is no provision in the Evidence Code allowing general evidence of “corruptness” as a means of impeaching a witness. The only such admissible evidence is evidence of a prior conviction under section
90.610 or evidence that the witness has a poor reputation for truthfulness under section
90.609....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 173016
...Generally, when a defendant in a criminal case takes the stand, the prosecutor is permitted to attack the defendant's credibility by asking whether the defendant has ever been convicted of a felony or a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, and how many times. § 90.610, Fla....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1988 WL 91408
...no significant prior criminal activity, the state cannot introduce evidence of nonviolent crimes. Here, however, the question pertaining to other felonies came out in cross-examination of the appellant and was proper to impeach his credibility under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1987)....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1373781
...hat role such a claim will play in this case. When this case was dismissed, Mr. Howard had a pending motion to prevent the admission of these criminal records in evidence. Criminal records are sometimes admissible for the purpose of impeachment. See § 90.610(1), Fla....
...At this point, however, it is unclear whether any impeachment of Mr. Howard's testimony at trial will be necessary or appropriate. In a civil case, such evidence is inadmissible "if it is so remote in time as to have no bearing on the present character *313 of the witness." § 90.610(1)(a)....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 638, 2013 WL 5313183, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1988
...Prior to Reape’s testimony, defense counsel stated his intention to cross-examine Reape about her incarceration in jail for a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction. However, because this is a misdemeanor offense, it could not be the basis for impeaching Reape. See § 90.610, Fla....
...The credibility of a witness may be attacked “by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment.” § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 220513
...ment methods. We agree. Generally, impeachment concerning a defendant's prior convictions is limited to two questions. The first question establishes that the defendant has committed a felony or other offense involving dishonesty or false statement. Section 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 309, 2014 WL 1809636, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 1557
...the line of questioning, and, therefore, sufficiently preserved the issue for appeal as a pro se litigant. Merits This issue concerns whether the trial court properly admitted Wilcox’s pri- or criminal record as a form of impeachment. Pursuant to section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2008), the State may attack the credibility of a witness, including the accused, by introducing evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if (1) the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in exce...
...Wilcox was a dishonest felon whose testimony should not be believed. However, when a witness has been convicted of a felony, the State may not inquire further into whether the felony involved dishonesty or a false statement because the intent of subsection 90.610(1) is to allow impeachment for all felonies, regardless of whether they involve dishonesty or a false statement, but to limit impeachment concerning misdemeanors to only those that involve dishonesty or a false statement....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...ber of times he had been convicted of a crime, the nature of those crimes, the victims of the crimes, and the punishment he received, as well as in allowing questions concerning misdemeanors, e.g., battery, with which the appellant had been charged. Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1981), provides in part: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment...
...The appellee's initial question concerning convictions of "crimes" was improper. A person attempting to impeach the character of a witness, or a party, may no longer ask the witness whether he has ever been convicted of a crime. The question would have been proper prior to July 1, 1979; however, section 90.610(1) prohibits this question because it restricts the crimes that may be considered when attempting to impeach a witness....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1991 WL 253354
...which the cases of Espinosa and Beltran-Lopez are severed. NOTES [1] The jury recommended the death penalty for Beltran-Lopez by an eight-to-four vote, and he, too, was sentenced to death. [2] §
921.141(5)(b), (d), (e), (h), Fla. Stat. (1985). [3] Section
90.610, Florida Statutes (1987), is inapplicable since that section applies to the use of criminal convictions to impeach witnesses....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2363
...The appellees also argue that evidence of past drug use by Botte was admissible to corroborate other evidence on the material issue of his drug use at the time of the accident, citing State v. Wadsworth,
210 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1968). As to the evidence of prior crimes, we note that section
90.610 of the evidence code specifically forbids the use of such evidence for impeachment of credibility....
...In another contested ruling on Burley's testimony, the court permitted the defense to read for the jury deposition questions specifically setting out Burley's prior criminal history, including the specific nature of the crimes whether felonies or misdemeanors. Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess o...
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1359
...("The supreme court shall adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts...."). Therefore, when the Legislature enacts a procedural rule of evidence, it must be adopted by the supreme court. See State v. McFadden,
772 So.2d 1209, 1213 (Fla.2000) ("As this Court has determined, section
90.610(1) involves a matter of court procedure solely within the province of this Court to enact *603 pursuant to article V, section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution.") (citing State v....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 471155
...Defense counsel sought to impeach Romero by establishing that in November 1992, when he first gave a statement to the police, Romero was facing felony charges which were resolved a month later by a sentence of probation with adjudication of guilt withheld. The prosecutor objected that such impeachment was improper under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1995), since adjudication had been withheld....
...ior criminal charges. The state concedes error, but argues that it was harmless. We hold that the limitation on the cross examination of this important state witness was reversible error. The proposed cross examination of Romero was proper not under section
90.610 cited by the state at trial, but as evidence of bias or interest pursuant to section
90.608(2), Florida Statutes (1995)....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 118976
...antially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Another is the rule excluding evidence of the defendant's prior criminal record except as impeachment evidence when he testifies and even there the exception is clothed with many safeguards. See § 90.610, Fla....
...self from charges of which he has no notice? And how many issues are to be raised to perplex me and the jury? Away, away! That ought not to be; that is nothing to the matter." 1 Wigmore, Evidence Section 194, at 647 (3d Ed. 1940). [9] Interestingly, section 90.610(a), Florida Statutes, recognizes that in civil trials evidence of criminal convictions can be "so remote in time as to have no bearing on the present character of the witness." [10] See Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, Section 404.9 at 120 (2d Ed....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 604181
...The trial court erred because it allowed the prosecutor to cross-examine Livingston about the specific nature of his prior convictions. The prosecutor may ask the defendant if he has committed any felonies or crimes involving dishonesty or a false statement. § 90.610, Fla....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 617038
...victions and, of those felonies, how many were for crimes involving dishonesty or false statement. In denying defendant's request for this more extensive inquiry of the witness, the trial court ruled that there are two permissible inquiries under subsection 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1993); the first, covering all felony convictions, and the second, covering misdemeanors involving dishonesty or false statement. It reasoned that allowing a witness who has been convicted of a felony to be further questioned as to whether that felony involved a crime of dishonesty or false statement would result in impermissible inquiry into the nature of the felony. Subsection 90.610(1) of the Florida Evidence Code (1993) reads: *883 A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment...
...268, 272,
34 So.2d 429, 431 (Fla. 1948); Davis v. State,
397 So.2d 1005, 1007-08 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The sole purpose of impeachment by prior convictions is to attack credibility or believability of the witness. As noted by Charles Erhardt in his comments to section
90.610 of the evidence code, the theory supporting the admissibility of a wide variety of convictions is that "a person with a criminal record has demonstrated a willingness to violate the law, which bears upon the person's willingness to dis...
...as traffic offenses, was admissible for impeachment purposes. See State v. Page,
449 So.2d 813, 815 (Fla. 1984); Hendrick v. Strazzulla,
135 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1961); Watts; § 90.08, Fla. Stat. (1975). In 1977, the Florida Evidence Code was enacted and section
90.610 replaced that part of section 90.08 relating to evidence of prior convictions affecting the credibility of a witness. [1] As initially enacted, subsection
90.610(1) restricted impeachment only to crimes involving dishonesty or false statement....
...eracity." Senate Judiciary Staff Analysis, SB 754, at 3 (1975). Despite this expressed written legislative intent to restrict the types of crimes utilized for impeachment purposes, the very next year the legislature, without explanation, expanded subsection 90.610(1) to include all crimes punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year....
...issible. The effect of the subsection, as amended by the legislature and as adopted by the supreme court, is to allow impeachment for all felonies, but restrict impeachment to only those misdemeanors involving dishonesty or false statement. Thus, subsection 90.610(1), as amended, expanded the class of crimes which could be utilized for impeachment purposes close to the pre-1977 practice of allowing impeachment for all crimes....
...We cannot read into the statute or the subsection, as adopted by the supreme court, an intent to depart from the long-standing practice of restricting inquiry into the nature of the offense. Accord Cummings v. State,
412 So.2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In Davis, the first district rejected a literal reading of subsection
90.610(1) by refusing to approve the following question even though it tracked the statutory language: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime punishable by death or in excess of a year?" The court expressed its concern that this question co...
...In Cummings, the prosecutor asked on cross-examination how many times the defendant had been convicted of a crime. We held that by encompassing all crimes, this inquiry was impermissible. The question included irrelevant crimes, specifically, misdemeanors not involving dishonesty or false statement. Pursuant to section
90.610, "evidence of prior convictions for misdemeanors not involving dishonesty or false statements is irrelevant." Cummings,
412 So.2d at 438....
...If the witness denies a conviction, the prosecution can impeach him by introducing a certified record of that conviction, which will necessarily reveal the nature of the crime. Goodman, supra; Irvin v. State,
324 So.2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The enactment of Section
90.610(1) does not affect the rules governing the elicitation of the nature of a prior conviction....
...er. [2] Prior to 1977, convictions of perjury specifically rendered witnesses incompetent to testify. However, that distinction was removed and perjury is no longer dealt with separately. Section 90.08, Florida Statutes (1977), renumbered in part as section 90.610, Florida Statutes (Supp....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ich you were convicted?" Defense counsel objected, stating that the question was improper; the trial court overruled the objection; and the appellant answered the question affirmatively. It is obvious that the prosecutor was tracking the language of § 90.610(1), Fla....
...le by death, he has virtually been required to expose the exact nature of the crime because there are so few crimes punishable by death. For impeachment purposes, it is not necessary or proper that the jury have this detailed information. Insofar as § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...See United States v. Smith [
623 F.2d 627 (9th Cir.1950)].
413 So.2d at 484. We, therefore, hold that, for purposes of impeachment, the trial court was required to regard Biggs as having been convicted of a crime within the meaning of the Florida Evidence Code, Section
90.610, Florida Statutes (1981)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 185196
...the appellant. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for a new trial. NOTES [1] Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436,
86 S.Ct. 1602,
16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [2] The convictions in question were misdemeanors and, thus, would be inadmissible pursuant to §
90.610, Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 35 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 503
...e. We agree. The information introduced at the evi-dentiary hearing regarding Danford’s criminal charges was not admissible and had no impeachment value. This information demonstrates that Danford was charged with a crime, but never convicted. See § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2009 WL 1544264
...This Court has repeatedly recognized that "[t]he right of cross-examination is `implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation'" guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions. Garcia v. State,
816 So.2d 554, 561 (Fla.2002) (quoting Conner v. State,
748 So.2d 950, 955 (Fla.1999)). Eaglin relies on section
90.610, Florida Statutes (2006), as a basis for his claim that the impeachment should have been permitted. Section
90.610 states: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment.... §
90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). In the context of section
90.610(1), this Court has defined a conviction as "an adjudication of guilt or judgment of conviction by the trial court." State v....
...ed through a judicial court process as defined by this Court, but instead was an internal reprimand. See Jackson v. State,
545 So.2d 260, 264 (Fla. 1989) (concluding that a police department reprimand was not a criminal conviction as contemplated by section
90.610)....
...In both cases, the Second District held that the trial court erred in precluding the defense from cross-examining the main prosecution witness on the basis of a prior false report to the police. Yet, even assuming that a false reporting exception to section 90.610 should be recognized, an issue we do not address in this case, [3] the trial court did not *943 err in refusing to allow the impeachment of Baker with his prior disciplinary report....
...1st DCA 2008), review granted, No. SC08-1879,
13 So.3d 468 (Fla. Jan. 9, 2009), in which the First District certified conflict with the Second District's decision in Jaggers v. State,
536 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), which recognized a "false reporting" exception to section
90.610 and relied, in part, on the decision in Williams....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1175340
...This was improper. See §
90.404.2(a) Fla. Stat. (2000); Parks v. Zitnik,
453 So.2d 434, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Compounding the problems, the trial court also allowed Lang's attorney to question LaMarr about the nature of a prior criminal conviction. While section
90.610, Florida Statutes (2000) allows evidence regarding the conviction of certain crimes as impeachment, generally, the law does not permit questions about the nature of a witness' conviction....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15141, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 1023
...The witness may have had an expectation of favorable disposition of her own proceedings if she cooperated. The trial judge denied the motion for disclosure ruling that the juvenile’s record was confidential under the Florida Statutes. 4 Relying on Florida Statute § 90.610(l)(b), which prohibits impeaching a juvenile witness by reference to juvenile adjudications, the trial judge refused to allow defense counsel to pursue this line of questioning....
...showing of relevancy. Once the facts are gathered, the district court will be able to rule on whether this cross examination was relevant and therefore unconstitutionally excluded. REVERSED and REMANDED. 1 . Fla.Stat. § 39.12 (1981). 2 . Fla.Stat. § 90.610(l)(b) (1981)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1745
...ke the wind out of the sails of a defense attack on a witness's credibility." The court's ruling in this case was especially harmful because the court permitted *1019 the state to use improper methods of impeachment on cross-examination of Williams. Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1985) provides in part: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which he was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment, ... The state's initial question concerning conviction of a "crime" was improper. Section 90.610(1) now restricts inquiry concerning prior convictions to convictions for felonies or for crimes involving dishonesty or a false statement....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12266, 2011 WL 3359613
...a witness by: (1) Introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness's present testimony. (2) Showing that the witness is biased. (3) Attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of s.
90.609 or s.
90.610....
...lando Police Department, but when the City attempted, on cross-examination, to introduce evidence of the witness's prior arrests by the Orlando Police Department, the trial court precluded the testimony. Pineiro argues that no error occurred because section
90.610 permits a party to attack the credibility of any witness only with evidence of a conviction of a prior felony or a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, which was not the situation here. However, section
90.610(3) specifically provides that nothing in section
90.610 affects the admissibility of evidence under section
90.608....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1630144
...he time of the alleged offenses. In order to impeach appellant's credibility, the trial judge took judicial notice of the fact that appellant was on probation at the time of the alleged offenses. Although this means of impeachment is not afforded by section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1999), [2] the declarant's credibility and possible bias may be impeached under section
90.806(1), Florida Statutes (1999)....
...I won't do it again, it will be okay? A. Yes. * * * Q. Okay. During that whole sequence of you all being in the car, going over to his apartment, he never threatened any of you? A. He said please don't do this, I am in big enough trouble as it is. [2] 90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment. (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in exce...
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...question posed by the prosecutor to the appellant, "You ever been convicted of a crime before?" In impeaching a witness by use of past convictions, the proper question is whether the witness (here the defendant) has ever been convicted of a felony. Section 90.610(1), Fla....
...State,
412 So.2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Davis v. State,
397 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Appellant here was forced by the court and the prosecutor to tell the jury that he had once been convicted of a misdemeanor, battery. That is clearly improper under section
90.610(1) which provides: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the l...
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 934889
...However, in affirming as to appellant's first issue, we certify conflict with Cliburn v. State,
710 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), and Jaggers v. State,
536 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), to the extent these cases create a false reporting exception to section
90.610, Florida Statutes (2005)....
...Following the proffer, the trial court ruled to exclude the evidence as irrelevant and improper impeachment evidence. In his first issue, appellant asserts the trial court erred in preventing him from introducing evidence that A.B. had previously falsely accused her brother of physical abuse. Section 90.610, Florida *42 Statutes, provides that a party may attack the credibility of any witness through the presentation of evidence establishing that a witness has been (1) convicted of a crime punishable in excess of one year's imprisonment, or (2) convicted of a crime of dishonesty or false statement....
...Thus, as a general rule, credibility may not be attacked by proof that a witness committed specific acts of misconduct which did not end in a criminal conviction. See Jackson v. State,
545 So.2d 260, 264 (Fla.1989). However, the Second District has recognized an exception to section
90.610 where a witness has previously falsely reported an incident to authorities even though the witness has never been convicted of the false report....
...State,
386 So.2d 25, 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (reversing based on trial court's failure to allow evidence of a prior false report where credibility of the witness was crucial to the defense, without expressly acknowledging that such a ruling was based on an exception to section
90.610)....
...did not require the same standard of review as the direct appeal of a conviction). However, for the following reasons, we respectfully decline to adopt the exception and certify conflict with the line of cases adopting a false reporting exception to section 90.610, Florida Statutes. First, the Legislature adopted the express wording of section 90.610, Florida Statutes, in an effort to bar all character impeachment based on prior misconduct that did not involve a criminal conviction. The plain language of section 90.610, Florida Statutes, authorizes impeachment with only prior convictions; there is no exception written into or considered by the statute....
...Second, in Jaggers and Cliburn, the Second District provided for an exception from the statute without articulating a specific legal reason for its creation. These cases highlight the existence of other statutory provisions that would allow the evidence notwithstanding section 90.610's prior conviction requirements as support for the exception's creation....
...ve character. See Dragovich v. State,
492 So.2d 350 (Fla.1986). [1] Were this court to expand the narrow application of section
90.405(2)'s character at issue provision to all cases in which the veracity of a witness is pertinent to the proceedings, section
90.610's confinement of impeachment evidence to only prior convictions would be rendered meaningless....
...interrogation that [would be] repetitive or only marginally relevant."). For these reasons, this court affirms appellant's conviction. In doing so, we certify conflict with Cliburn and Jaggers to the extent they create a false reporting exception to section 90.610, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 287577
...[2] Consequently, we can see no compelling reason to reconsider our holding in Hall, and we decline the State's invitation to do so. Within the context of the undisputed facts in the case at bar, the first question presented is what constitutes a "conviction" for purposes of impeachment under section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes? The trial court based its impeachment ruling on Barber v....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 80223
...See §
90.403, *287 Fla. Stat. (2006). Officer Levey's reference to Love's criminal record is not admissible under any section of the evidence code. During Love's cross examination, the state did not impeach him with a conviction of any crime, pursuant to section
90.610, Florida Statutes (2006)....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 80, 2009 WL 36445
...ll intents and purposes, a "child," and that he was molested. Given the record, we conclude that the trial court correctly applied the law, and we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's allowing into evidence the collateral-crime evidence. Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2005), allows a party to "attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1...
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 249, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 685, 2010 WL 1791139
...There was an anonymous tip that drugs were being sold out of a residence where Isidoro lived. It was investigated and no arrests were made. The fact that Isidoro was investigated in Seminole County would not have been admissible as impeachment. Under § 90.610, Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 22975
...juana in 1972. The state moved in limine to preclude examination regarding the conviction on the ground that the prior convictions were too remote in time to be admissible and that defense counsel did not have a certified copy of the judgment. While section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1987), precludes evidence in a civil trial of a conviction so remote in time as to have no bearing on the present character of a witness, it does not prohibit such evidence in a criminal trial. § 90.610(1)(a); see also Sponsor's Note 1979, § 90.610(1)(a)....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 205448
...e likely that he could be guilty of the crime charged. Because of our reversal on this point, we do not reach the other points raised by appellant, except to comment on appellant's contention that the prosecutor engaged in improper impeachment under section 90.610, Florida Statutes....
...On appeal, the state concedes that appellant was confused by the sequence of the questions, but contends there is no support for appellant's contention that the prosecutor intentionally switched the questions in order to confuse appellant. As a predicate to impeachment under section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes, two questions may be asked: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" and "Have you ever been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement?"....
...In this case, defense counsel did not ask that the witness be instructed on what is meant by "crime involving dishonesty or false statement." Had he done so, the complained-of confusion could have been avoided. [2] REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial. ZEHMER, J., concurs. BOOTH, J., dissents. NOTES [1] Section 90.610(1) provides in pertinent part: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1...
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1724
...308,
94 S.Ct. 1105,
39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Greene v. McElroy,
360 U.S. 474,
79 S.Ct. 1400,
3 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1959); Alvarez v. State,
467 So.2d 455 (Fla. 3rd DCA), review denied,
476 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1985); Yolman v. State,
469 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). [7] §
90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 2509185
...the state had dropped the theft charge in exchange for his guilty plea to robbery. The prosecutor was also allowed to question appellant about his pending violation of probation. The general rule for impeachment by prior convictions, as codified in section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2003), is that it is restricted to determining if the witness has previously been convicted of a crime, and if so, how many times....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1929, 2009 WL 530391
...In the instant appeal, DeBolt makes the same argument he made in his motion for new trial. Section
90.609, Florida Statutes (2006), provides that the character of a witness may be attacked only by reputation evidence that refers to character relating to truthfulness. Under section
90.610, a witness's credibility can only be impeached by convictions of crimes involving false statements or dishonesty....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...delve into a prior conviction simply because a defendant elects to take the witness stand in his own defense. This is true despite the proximity and similarity of the alleged subsequent offense to a prior conviction. The appropriate rule is found in Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1979)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 1225200, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4362
...of abuse that occurred in 2005. 1 The state filed a pretrial motion in limine to preclude Carlisle from cross-examining the victim regarding her recantation of the 2005 abuse allegations. The state argued the false accusation was inadmissible under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2007), and this court’s decision in Washington v....
...idence that the victim had filed a false police report in a totally unrelated matter when the victim was not convicted of any charges relating to the false report. Washington,
985 So.2d at 52 . The court found the impeachment would be improper under
90.610 because that section allowed impeachment only by prior convictions....
...We note that the Florida Supreme Court did not issue Pantoja until after the trial occurred in this case and thus the trial court did not have the benefit of Pantoja when it decided this issue. . The Court also discussed the potential admissibility of the prior recantation under sections
90.610 and
90.405(2), Florida Statutes. The Court rejected the concept that a general false reporting exception existed under section
90.610, and the Court found that a false report was only admissible under this section if the person who made the false report was convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving dishonesty or false statement....
...efense of the crime of sexual battery. Id. at 1097 . Neither of these sections would be a basis for finding evidence of the victim’s recantation admissible in the instant case. While the state was correct that the evidence was not admissible under section
90.610, that section specifically notes that ”[n]othing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence under s.
90.404 or
90.608.” §
90.610(3), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2006 WL 2883172
...the crime being tried). Further, when the defendant takes the stand, the law provides that the State must limit its inquiry of a defendant's prior record to asking if he or she has ever been convicted of a felony or a crime involving dishonesty. See § 90.610(1), Fla....
...He testified that he had handled "between 10 and 15 capital cases" before representing Henry, and "probably 5 of these went to trial as death penalty cases." Two or three of the death penalty cases resulted in a sentence of death. [10] See §§
90.404(2)(a),
90.610, Fla....
...State,
639 So.2d 966 (Fla.1994); Erickson v. State,
565 So.2d 328, 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)). However, the fact that Henry had been sentenced to death for the murder of Suzanne Henry would not have been admissible if defense counsel had not elicited it from the defendant. See §
90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 417645
...instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor's last question as there was no evidence that the witness had been convicted of a felony. The court's remedy did not go far enough in curing the prejudice which resulted from the improper questioning. Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2000), states that, "[a] party may attack the credibility of any witness, ... by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of [one] year under the law under which the witness was convicted,...." See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). It is error, however, to allow a witness to be impeached pursuant to section 90.610(1) when he was not adjudicated guilty of the prior offense....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...r of convictions of such crimes. We agree with the First District Court of Appeal that the question, `Have you ever been convicted of a felony?' will cover crimes punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. However, the second part of Section 90.610(1) presents a more difficult problem....
...A defendant may not know which crimes involve dishonesty or false statements and may open the door to disclosure of certain crimes by failing to acknowledge the number of such convictions or create the impression of a pattern of criminal conduct by including crimes not cognizable by Section 90.610(1)....
...Therefore it may be appropriate for the trial court upon request of either counsel to instruct the witness out of the presence of the jury as to the types of crime which involve dishonesty or false statements. We hold that as a predicate to impeachment under Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1979), *808 two questions may be asked: `Have you ever been convicted of a felony?' and `Have you ever been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement?' Accordingly, the form of the prosecutor's question was improper......
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 135511
...s examination of Means. During recross-examination, the defense asked Means whether he had ever been convicted of a felony. The state objected, arguing that this question was beyond the scope of redirect, and the court sustained the objection. Under Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1987), a party may attack *269 the credibility of a witness with evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...airplane. Three points are raised on appeal, one of which we conclude merits reversal. The State attempted to impeach the appellant *1127 by demonstrating that he had been convicted of a prior crime. This impeachment was improper in accordance with Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1981), re: conviction of certain crimes as impeachment....
...f guilt by a jury should logically be just as sufficient as a finding followed by an adjudication, to serve as a predicate for impeaching a witness' veracity. However logical this view may appear, I presume the legislature was aware, when it enacted section 90.610(1) that the Florida Supreme Court had already announced: This court has so often expressed the opinion that the word "conviction" includes the judgment of the court, as well as a plea or verdict of guilty, that such definition of the w...
...on in a subsequent cause may be said to be firmly established. Smith v. State,
75 Fla. 468,
78 So. 530, 532 (1918). Since the Florida Supreme Court had already taken a clear-cut view of the meaning of "conviction," I believe we are bound to construe section
90.610(1) as intending to incorporate that definition when this provision was passed....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 1133321, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4219
...or her credibility may be attacked “by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law ... or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement.” § 90.610(1). But when a witness is questioned about his or her prior convictions pursuant to section 90.610, the questioning is usually limited to *486 the existence and the number of prior convictions unless the witness answers untruthfully....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 69812
...e testimony regarding a gun, a high speed chase, *67 an accident with a patrol car and some shooting by the police officers. Defense counsel objected repeatedly to the inquiry by the prosecution into this prior event. The appellant argues that under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1987), the credibility of any witness may be attacked, but only by asking the standard questions: (1) have you ever been convicted of a felony? (2) how many times? (3) have you ever been convicted of a crime involvin...
...rty notice of the alleged defect in his question. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 104.2 (2d ed. 1984). The question "Would you possess cocaine," is improper because the propensity of the witness to possess cocaine is not proper impeachment under Rule 90.610, and is therefore irrelevant....
...The prosecution did not establish that Delafield had been actually convicted, so there is no basis for arguing that an inquiry into the factual circumstances would be proper as proof of bias or interest. Arboledo v. State,
524 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla. 1988) (an arrest is not admissible grounds for impeachment under Rule
90.610)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 95450
...ld be impeachable by the prior conviction in the other case." On appeal, Parker argues that the definition of the word "conviction" includes adjudication by the trial court. He points to the impeachment rule in the Florida Evidence Code, codified as section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1987), which reads: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in exce...
...He relies, however, on language in a concurring opinion by Judge Anstead in Roberts v. State,
450 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied,
461 So.2d 116 (Fla. 1984), which noted conflict with Barber and stated: I presume the legislature was aware, when it enacted section
90.610(1) that the Florida Supreme Court had already announced: This court has so often expressed the opinion that the word "conviction" includes the judgment of the court, as well as a plea or verdict of guilty that such definition of the wo...
...on in a subsequent cause may be said to be firmly established. Smith v. State,
75 Fla. 468,
78 So. 530, 532 (1918). Since the Florida Supreme Court had already taken a clear-cut view of the meaning of "conviction," I believe we are bound to construe section
90.610(1) as intending to incorporate that definition when this provision was passed....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 23484
...In such cases, as here, the essential focus of the inquiry is whether trial counsel was ineffective by depriving the defendant of his right to testify on his own behalf. Thus, the initial question is whether appellant was properly advised about the *1023 consequences of testifying. Under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1993), a witness, including the accused, may be impeached with a conviction for a crime which was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 63354
...which does not constitute the crime of sexual battery, the conduct is deemed to be lewd and lascivious." Consensual intercourse with an unchaste fifteen year old constitutes the crime of lewd and lascivious conduct. See id. Under sections
90.609 and
90.610, Florida Statutes, the character of a witness may be impeached by evidence of reputation for truthfulness or by evidence of criminal convictions. While it is generally true that, other than evidence of prior convictions under section
90.610(1), credibility may not be attacked by proof that the witness has committed specific acts of misconduct which bear on the truthfulness of the witness, Fernandez v....
...e that the court's ruling was indeed error. Admittedly, the general rule is that credibility may not be attacked by proof that a witness has committed specific acts of misconduct that bear upon the witness's truthfulness. Rather, sections
90.609 and
90.610, Florida Statutes (1997), permit the character of a witness to be impeached by evidence of reputation for truthfulness or by evidence of criminal convictions....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ght's five convictions were for misdemeanors which did not involve dishonesty or a false statement and were thus totally inadmissible [2] for impeachment purposes or otherwise. Cummings v. State,
412 So.2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The clear terms of Section
90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18444
...if attacked, may be supported by any evidence that would be admissible for those
purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness.” §
90.806(1), Fla. Stat. (2016).
One method of attacking a witness’s credibility is through evidence of prior felony
convictions. §
90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 2428523
...Rogers, it is fair to say, isn't it, by your pleading guilty to those 13 prior felonies, you had received a much lesser sentence by pleading guilty than you could have ultimately received? A. Yes. Rogers argues that he is entitled to a new trial based upon this exchange. Generally, under section
90.610, Florida Statutes (2006), impeachment by prior convictions is "restricted to determining if the witness has previously been convicted of a crime, and if so, how many times." Ross,
913 So.2d at 1186 (citing Fotopoulos v....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21910136
...the 1967 conviction was too remote to use as impeachment. Discussion The rule is simple. Certified copies of prior convictions are admissible to impeach a witness who falsely testifies as to the number of crimes for which he has been convicted. See § 90.610(1), Fla....
...too remote for use as impeachment evidence. In a civil trial, the test for exclusion of this evidence due to remoteness is a requirement that the prior conviction be so remote in time as to have no bearing on the present character of a witness. See §
90.610(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). However, section
90.610 does not provide for exclusion of evidence of even remote convictions *137 in a criminal trial. See §
90.610(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; Peoples v. State,
576 So.2d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (noting that, although section
90.610(1), "precludes evidence in a civil trial of a conviction so remote in time as to have no bearing on the present character of a witness, it does not prohibit such evidence in a criminal trial."). Although not statutorily recognized in section
90.610, the possibility of remoteness as a basis for exclusion in a criminal case has been recognized by our Supreme Court through the provisions of section
90.403, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 213019
...First and fundamentally, we conclude that there should have been no reference whatever to the previous case because withholding adjudication simply does not result in the defendant's having been "convicted" of an offense as is required to impeach a witness under section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1997)....
...State,
450 So.2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)(Anstead, J., specially concurring), review denied,
461 So.2d 116 (Fla.), which expressed his disagreement with Barber on the ground that: However logical this view may appear, I presume the legislature was aware, when it enacted section
90.610(1) that the Florida Supreme Court had already announced: This court has so often expressed the opinion that the word "conviction" includes the judgment of the court, as well as a plea or verdict of guilty, that such definition of the w...
...a subsequent cause may be said to be firmly established. Smith v. State,
75 Fla. 468,
78 So. 530, 532 (1918). Since the Florida Supreme Court had already taken a clear-cut view of the meaning of "conviction," I believe *414 we are bound to construe section
90.610(1) as intending to incorporate that definition when this provision was passed....
...he had denied being previously convicted on the entirely accurate ground that, in fact, adjudication had been withheld. Lawhorne v. State,
500 So.2d 519 (Fla. 1986); Williams v. State, 24 Fla.L.Weekly D775,
730 So.2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see also §
90.610(2)(permitting evidence that conviction is on appeal); McArthur v....
...se errors prejudicially affected the jury's resolution of what was primarily a swearing match between the teenage son of the victim who did not herself testifyand the defendant, the judgment below is reversed for a new trial. Reversed. NOTES [1] 90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment. (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment.... § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14062, 2011 WL 3903062
...Moncus does not contest the State's right to attack his credibility after eliciting exculpatory hearsay, even though he chose not to testify. Kelly v. State,
857 So.2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Evidence of a prior felony conviction or crime of dishonesty is admissible for impeachment under section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1995)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4073348
...credibility: (1) Introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness's present testimony. (2) Showing that the witness is biased. (3) Attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of s.
90.609 or s.
90.610....
...f specific acts. But cf. Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 609.1 at 574 (noting that a witness who has testified regarding a person's good reputation for truthfulness may be cross-examined regarding that person's specific acts of misconduct). Section 90.610 provides for impeachment based on a witness' conviction for a crime punishable by more than one year in prison or a crime that involves dishonesty or a false statement....
...nds for impeachment under section
90.608(2). However, there is no provision in the Evidence Code allowing general evidence of "corruptness" as a means of impeaching a witness. The only such admissible evidence is evidence of a prior conviction under section
90.610 or evidence that the witness has a poor reputation for truthfulness under section
90.609....
...position in Roebuck v. State,
953 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). In Roebuck,
953 So.2d at 41, we certified conflict with Jaggers, as well as Cliburn v. State,
710 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), "to the extent they create a false reporting exception to section
90.610, Florida Statutes." The supreme court initially accepted jurisdiction and, after a determination that there was no express conflict, dismissed the review proceedings....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 2847942
...orks to create the inference that he went to trial in this case because he was innocent. On cross, the state was allowed to conduct limited questioning into the prior convictions, beyond the number of convictions and whether any involved dishonesty. § 90.610, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22399671
...t she had made against her father, and (ii) to attack the victim's credibility by her statement that she saw Jesus. We affirm the trial court's evidentiary rulings. I. Prior False Accusations Generally, other than evidence of prior convictions under section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes, credibility may not be attacked by proof that the witness has committed specific acts of misconduct which bear on the truthfulness of the witness....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1516959
...Waggoner's prior defense counsel testified he offered the prosecutor a copy of the rap sheet for Towers, but the prosecutor disclaimed any interest. The trial judge ruled that Towers should have been given an opportunity to see the additional judgments and that the defense's failure to disclose them was prejudicial. Section 90.610(1) provides as follows: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year un...
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 136087
...intimate that such was the case. [3] Appellant also asserted that other witnesses were available and prepared to testify in a similar fashion. [4] We express no opinion as to what constitutes a crime of "dishonesty" for purposes of impeachment under Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8652, 2016 WL 2754018
...We stated in McFadden that “where the trial court withholds adjudication of guilt
as authorized by statute,” a prior crime is not a “conviction” for purposes of
impeachment under the Florida Evidence Code. McFadden,
772 So. 2d at 1216.
In interpreting section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1997), the statute at issue
in McFadden, we stated:
In the absence of a definition of “conviction” in section
90.610(1), it is appropriate to resort to prior case law....
...describe the effect of a former conviction in a subsequent
case may be said to be firmly established.
75 Fla. at 475,
78 So. at 532 (emphasis supplied).
....
For purposes of impeaching a witness with a prior conviction
under section
90.610(1), however, we find no basis to deviate from
the definition of conviction most consistently used by this Court,
which requires a judgment of the court adjudicating the defendant
guilty.
McFadden, 772 So....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 749
...On cross examination the state asked Hall if he had ever been on the victim's property and Hall had responded that he had not. The state was *59 then allowed, over appellant's objection, to ask Hall if he had pled no contest to the charge of trespass on the victim's property, and Hall responded that he had. Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1995) provides that convictions of certain crimes can be used as impeachment; however, subsection (1)(b) provides that juvenile adjudications are not admissible under the statute....
...Here, however, the witness was testifying for the defendant, and if the state had been unable to cross examine Hall about his juvenile record it would not have violated any constitutional right. The state also relies on Jackson v. State,
336 So.2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); however, section
90.610(1)(b) was not in effect when the Jackson case was tried. Rather this court was interpreting a different statute providing that a juvenile adjudication was not a conviction of a crime. In the present case the only basis on which Hall could have been impeached for criminal convictions was section
90.610; however, the statute plainly provided that juvenile adjudications could not be used for that purpose....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ced his character in issue, such an attack deprives him of a fair trial and constitutes reversible error. Lewis v. State,
377 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1980); Young v. State,
141 Fla. 529,
195 So. 569 (1939); Mann v. State,
22 Fla. 600 (1886); Fla.Evid. Code, §
90.610, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2356672
...Here, the defendant argues the trial court erred in granting the State's motion to exclude reference to the false police report filed by the victim in the unrelated incident. However, both the rules of evidence and case law support the trial court's decision. See, e.g., §
90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2006); Jackson,
545 So.2d at 264. "The plain language of section
90.610, Florida Statutes, authorizes impeachment with only prior convictions; there is no exception written into or considered by the statute." Roebuck,
953 So.2d at 43 (emphasis in original)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 310040
...Finally, contrary to the City's assertion, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not permitting the City to impeach the plaintiff with evidence of prior convictions for writing bad checks where the convictions occurred many years ago. See § 90.610(1)(a), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 788372
...pellant's prior record. The ruling that Appellant's adjudication of delinquency could be used against him for impeachment purposes is erroneous. Martin v. State,
710 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (error to permit defense witness to be impeached under §
90.610, Fla. Stat., with juvenile adjudication); Goodman v. State,
567 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Lawton v. State,
538 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The applicable provision in the Florida Evidence Code states:
90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment. *566 (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in...
...aw under which the witness was convicted or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment, with the following exceptions: * * * (b) Evidence of juvenile adjudications are [sic] inadmissible under this subsection. § 90.610(1)(b), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10355, 2011 WL 2586346
...an acquittal on retrial. Similarly, Schofield’s “newly discovered evidence” concerning the facts underlying Scott’s prior convictions, as well as the facts underlying a crime for which Scott was tried and acquitted, is not admissible. Under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2010), the fact of Scott’s prior convictions for felonies and crimes of dishonesty and the number of his convictions for those offenses would have been admissible to impeach his credibility....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 16177
...witnesses with juvenile delinquency adjudications. This is so because it is clear that the above evidence is patently inadmissible in Florida. McCartney v. State,
510 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Bishop v. State,
438 So.2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); §
90.610(1)(b), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 272779
...You may consider this fact only in weighing the credibility of the testimony given. The state objected to the proposed instruction, deeming it insufficient in the context of this case. The trial court agreed, and denied the requested special instruction. Under the provisions of section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes, "[a] party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under...
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11282, 2010 WL 3023314
...uestioning regarding the expert's formal disciplinary proceedings: Section
90.609, Florida Statutes (2006), provides that the character of a witness may be attacked only by reputation evidence that refers to character relating to truthfulness. Under section
90.610, a witness's ability can only be impeached by convictions of crimes involving false statements or dishonesty....
...She also stated that after she served as guardian ad litem in this particular case, the same State of Washington judge appointed her to be guardian ad litem in other cases. [2] The concurrence relies on In re: Commitment of DeBolt,
19 So.3d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). That case, however, was decided under sections
90.609 and
90.610, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 3711413, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14492
...has explained, the application of this provision means that when the Legislature enacts a procedural rule of evidence, it must be adopted by the supreme court. See State v. McFadden,
772 So.2d 1209, 1213 (Fla.2000) (“As this Court has determined, section
90.610(1) involves a matter of court procedure solely within the province of this Court to enact pursuant to article V, section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution.”) (citing State v....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2014 WL 1408553
...convicted of three felonies because Davis—against trial counsel’s advice—decided
to testify during the guilt phase. Once Davis took the stand, the State was entitled
to inquire about his criminal convictions, as those convictions were relevant to his
credibility. See § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 5222601, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14814
...ess has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment-” § 90.610, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18065, 2012 WL 4897308
...wrongly prevents the defendant from testifying. See Hicks v. State,
666 So.2d 1021, 1022-23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Nelson alleges in his motion that his attorney misadvised that he could be interrogated on his juvenile adjudications should he testify. Section
90.610(1)(b), Florida Statutes, specifically excludes using such adjudications to attack the credibility of the witness....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 122615
...had occurred before that date. There is simply no basis for admitting the deposition testimony on grounds of impeaching credibility by prior inconsistent statements under section
90.608, Florida Statutes (1985). Nor is the testimony admissible under section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1985), which provides in part: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonme...
...See McArthur v. Cook,
99 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1957); Parks v. Zitnik,
453 So.2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The basic rule is that a witness may not be interrogated concerning prior arrests or pending charges, but only as to prior convictions as defined in §
90.610....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1410183
...However, he says that counsel advised him that if he testified, the details of his prior record could be placed before the jury. In reality, the State would only be able to bring out the number of the defendant's prior convictions, but not the details. See § 90.610, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1605294, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7309
...s testimony that she sometimes told lies to get out of trouble, and that the victim’s relationship with her mother was not good. The victim’s “prior bad acts” of lying are not admissible for purpose of impeachment. “The plain language of section 90.610, Florida Statutes, authorizes impeachment with only prior convictions; there is no exception written into or considered by the statute.” Roebuck v....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 621, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1468
...ction” in the Predator Act and the definition in the sentencing statute. 10 Several courts have noted that under Florida’s evidence code, adjudications of delinquency, unlike certain types of convictions, cannot be used to impeach witnesses. See § 90.610(1)(b), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...This argument is without merit because Clevinger specifically stated that he had known appellant a long time and could recognize his voice. [2] Id. [3] Appellant also argues that it was error to allow the prosecutor to ask the witness about the Jacksonville cases at all because they were not actually convictions. § 90.610, Florida Statutes (1979)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 911, 1998 WL 39400
...Arrests alone are not sufficient to constitute a violation of probation. See Hall v. State,
677 So.2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Manigault v. State,
534 So.2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Arrests, even for felony offenses, may not be used to impeach a witness' credibility at trial. §
90.610, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1161, 2006 WL 229792
...The witness, who had participated in the crime and entered a plea, testified against the defendant. The subject of the impeachment was that, when the witness was eighteen, he had been convicted of having sex with a sixteen year old, in another state, where it was a misdemean- or. Defendant recognizes that section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2004), which allows impeachment by prior felony convictions or convictions of other crimes involving dishonesty, would not apply....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 358241
...eck charges. The court granted the motion after concluding that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by its unfair prejudice. This issue requires resolution of two questions: whether the worthless check convictions are admissible under section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1989), and if so, whether they should nonetheless be excluded because their probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under section
90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). Section
90.610(1) provides in pertinent part; A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year...
...t in or credit with such bank or depository with which to pay the same on presentation. ... (Emphasis added). It is apparent from the plain language of the worthless check statute that the crime has deceit as its basis. The final consideration under section 90.610(1) is whether any of the convictions should be excluded because of being "so remote in time as to have no bearing on the present character of the witness." § 90.610(1)(a)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11751, 2009 WL 2568208
...stioning, but established procedures do not distinguish between felonies that are or are not crimes of dishonesty. The "crimes of dishonesty" category is used to allow cross-examination about the commission of crimes that typically are misdemeanors. Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2007), provides: *84 A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in exce...
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...on behind it, the reason why I was charged with trespassing. Some of the things. Actually that don't have any bearing to me on this case. A copy of Green's conviction of obstructing justice was introduced into evidence. On appeal appellant relies on Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1979) and Fulton v....
...It is appellant's position that the nature of the crime of which the witness was convicted is inadmissible so that prejudicial error was committed when the trial court refused to direct a mistrial and permitted introduction of the conviction into evidence. Section
90.610(3), Florida Statutes (1979) provides that the admissibility of evidence under Section
90.608, Florida Statutes (1979) is not affected by the limitations contained in Section
90.610(1)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 368468
...nation. However, because the defendant did not raise this issue below it is waived. There are only two remaining issues in this case, first, whether evidence of the defendant's alleged prior misconduct was admissible under sections
90.608,
90.609 or
90.610, Florida Statutes (1997), which also provide for impeachment with the use of character evidence....
...ue of attacking the credibility of a witness by attacking that witness's character, which is what happened in this case. Section
90.608(3) specifically states that character can only be attacked in accordance with the provisions of section
90.609 or
90.610....
...I further note that Ashcraft does not rely upon or even mention section
90.608(5). Section
90.609 provides for attacking or supporting "the credibility of a witness, including the accused, by evidence in the form of reputation." This statute is clearly not at issue as this is not what the state sought to do below. Section
90.610(1), provides: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable *101 by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the...
...onesty or false statement. If the defendant admits such a conviction, then the prosecutor can establish the number of such prior convictions. (Citation omitted). Accordingly, if the prosecutor was seeking to impeach the defendant's credibility under section 90.610(1), he could only have asked the two questions set forth in Britton....
...The Florida Supreme Court has further noted that "evidence of particular acts of misconduct cannot be introduced to impeach the credibility of a witness." Watson v. Campbell,
55 So.2d 540, 541 (Fla.1951); Fulton v. State,
335 So.2d 280 (Fla.1976). It is therefore clear that impeachment under section
90.610(1) was not proper....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5565, 2012 WL 1193406
...It concluded that the questioning was proper because Mr. Flint was not responsive when asked about the number of his prior felonies. This was error. The State could have shown that Mr. Flint had two prior felony convictions; the State could not ask about the nature of those convictions. See § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2015 WL 5445655
...to by
the witness being impeached. Section
90.608(3) allows impeachment of the
character of the witness by evidence of character relating to truthfulness under
section
90.609(1), Florida Statutes, and relating to evidence of certain crimes under
section
90.610, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14371, 2011 WL 4031529
...elated by a witness and are not to be considered as proof of guilt for the charged offense. Under the Evidence Code, one can impeach a hearsay statement with any evidence that could be used to impeach in-court testimony. §
90.806(1), Fla. Stat. See §
90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2013 WL 6169275, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23019
...a witness by:
(1) Introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness's present
testimony.
(2) Showing that the witness is biased.
(3) Attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of §
90.609 or §
90.610.
(4) Showing a defect of capacity, ability, or opportunity in the witness to observe, remember, or
recount the matters about which the witness testified.
(5) Proof by other witnesses that material facts are not as testified to by the witness being
impeached.”
Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 628653
...pt by the State to impeach him with inadmissible evidence. Even a conviction for petty theft can be used to impeach a witness. See State v. Page,
449 So.2d 813 (Fla.1984). It is one of the few misdemeanors that can be used to impeach a witness under section
90.610, Florida Statutes (1999). In Page, the Florida Supreme Court stated that: "[i]t is our view that the commission of petit theft... necessarily involves `dishonesty' so as to bring any conviction for such a crime within the scope of subsection
90.610(1)."
449 So.2d at 815....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...ion was sought. Furthermore, it is often the case with impeachment that the jury is not told every detail about the information used to impeach a witness. For example, when impeachment involves disclosing the witness's prior felony convictions under section 90.610, the jury usually hears only the number of such convictions without any information regarding the crimes for which the witness was convicted, even if otherwise relevant, such as convictions of perjury in previous trials....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2814049, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11274
...In light of this disposition, we need not reach Appellant’s additional arguments on appeal. However, we note that the State properly conceded at oral argument that the trial court erred in preventing Appellant from impeaching the victims with their prior crimes of dishonesty. See § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1443, 2011 WL 362419
...ions, over Appellant's objections, for abuse of discretion. See White v. State,
993 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding "[r]ulings regarding the admissibility of evidence are generally subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review."). Section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes, provides: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 yea...
...1st DCA 2003), still requires a finding of error. There, this court explained: The rule is simple. Certified copies of prior convictions are admissible to impeach a witness who falsely testifies as to the number of crimes for which he has been convicted. See § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 807, 1991 WL 11727
...rouble and all know how to use guns. (Emphasis supplied). On lesser proof, reversal would have been required. Evidence of juvenile charges or convictions, as the prosecutor had already been instructed by a pretrial order in liming, was inadmissible. § 90.610(l)(b), Fla.Stat....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 399528
...The trial court agreed and allowed the State to ask Johnson, "what are your *543 convictions for?" Johnson responded, "I am not going to say that." After another side bar, the court allowed the State to ask Johnson, "you have been convicted of a burglary before, haven't you?" We find this to be reversible error. Under section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2001), a party may attack the credibility of a witness by introducing evidence of a prior felony conviction....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 25905
...The trial court overruled defense counsel's objections. We conclude this was error. The state may impeach the character of the defendant by asking him whether he or she has ever been convicted of a felony or of a crime involving dishonesty or a false statement, and how many times. § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 41, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 277, 2016 WL 533898
...We stated in McFadden that “where the trial court withholds adjudication of guilt
as authorized by statute,” a prior crime is not a “conviction” for purposes of
impeachment under the Florida Evidence Code. McFadden,
772 So. 2d at 1216.
In interpreting section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1997), the statute at issue
in McFadden, we stated:
In the absence of a definition of “conviction” in section
90.610(1), it is appropriate to resort to prior case law....
...describe the effect of a former conviction in a subsequent
case may be said to be firmly established.
75 Fla. at 475,
78 So. at 532 (emphasis supplied).
....
For purposes of impeaching a witness with a prior conviction
under section
90.610(1), however, we find no basis to deviate from
the definition of conviction most consistently used by this Court,
which requires a judgment of the court adjudicating the defendant
guilty.
McFadden, 772 So....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1121, 2009 WL 321625
...Questions concerning a defendant's prior convictions are limited to whether the defendant has committed a felony or other offense involving dishonesty or false statements, and if the defendant admits such a conviction, how many of such prior convictions. See § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17987
...any other witness's credibility." Huggins v. State,
889 So. 2d 743, 756 (Fla. 2004). "A
party may attack the credibility of any witness . . . by evidence that the witness has been
convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of
1 year . . . ." §
90.610(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 371399
...Those are my questions. As a preliminary matter, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that tampering with a jury is a crime involving dishonesty. See Cook v. State,
581 So.2d 141 (Fla. 1991) (solicitation of perjury is admissible to impeach under section
90.610(1); standard of review is abuse of discretion)....
...However, the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecutor to inquire about the type of crime committed before Robert Tampling testified whether the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement. As Appellant argues, the proper procedure to impeach under section 90.610(1) is found in Gavins v....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...view, we conclude the State did present a prima facie case and that a judgment of acquittal was not required. The case must however be reversed on the evidentiary rulings as to prior convictions. The question concerns the impeachment of Rivers under Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1981), on the basis of two prior petit larceny convictions....
...convicted of a crime. Rivers did testify and on direct examination stated he had been convicted of a crime twice. The law of impeachment is this area was changed considerably by the Florida Legislature with the adoption of the Florida Evidence Code. Section 90.610 was amended to conform identically with Federal Rule of Evidence 609....
...The Florida Supreme Court so held in Hendrick v. Strazzulla,
135 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1961). The Court found that "a crime is a crime" under the then existing impeachment statute. The argument that discrediting crimes must involve moral turpitude was expressly rejected. Section
90.610, Florida Statutes (1981), now provides:
90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment....
...he appeal was taken or for which the pardon was granted inadmissible. Evidence of the pendency of the appeal is admissible. (3) Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence under s.
90.404 or s.
90.608. Since the Legislature amended Section
90.610 to conform identically with Federal Rule 609 we assume an intent to give the new impeachment statute a meaning similar to its federal counterpart....
...The defendant was charged with petit theft and moved at the close of the State's case to prevent the State from using a prior petit theft conviction for impeachment purposes. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant elected not to take the stand. On appeal, the First District reviewed the development of Section 90.610 and held at 97: When a statute is amended, as was § 90.610(1) in 1978, we may assume in the absence of contrary indication that the legislature intended the amended statute to have a meaning different from that accorded to it before the amendment....
...PERC,
353 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In light of these principles of statutory construction and the uniform construction given to Federal Rule of Evidence 609 by the federal courts, we can only conclude that the Florida Legislature intended a like interpretation for §
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1978)....
...ment purposes unless the prosecution has demonstrated that such crime involves some element of deceit, untruthfulness, or falsification bearing upon the defendant's capacity to testify truthfully. We agree with the First District's interpretation of Section 90.610 and conclude that the trial court erred in ruling that Rivers' prior petit larceny convictions were admissible for impeachment without first requiring the prosecution to demonstrate that Rivers' prior convictions were crimes of dishonesty within the meaning of Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1981)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13449, 2015 WL 5245221
... The State correctly argues that Williams’ motion was legally insufficient, as
it fails to include a listing of Williams’ prior convictions. This is significant only
to the extent that Williams’ prior record may involve “crimes of dishonesty or false
statement.” See § 90.610(1), Fla....
...crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment”). In
other words, to the extent that Williams’ prior record included crimes involving
dishonesty or false statement, the nature of these convictions would have been
admissible under section
90.610 if Williams chose to testify at trial. See, e.g.,
Blasco v. State,
419 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding that a witness may
properly be impeached under section
90.610 by being asked: “Have you ever been
convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement?”)....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17808, 1999 WL 1049619
...Brumley had not been charged nor convicted of any crime during Delap's first or second trials. Brumley was not indicted until late 1981, well after Delap's October 1978 second trial. Therefore, his illegal activities would not be admissible as a prior criminal conviction under Fla.Stat. § 90.610....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14135, 2011 WL 3903118
...Gilliam v. Smart,
809 So.2d 905, 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Walden v. State,
17 So.3d 795, 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (appellate courts have de novo review of a trial court’s erroneous interpretation and application of Florida law). Florida Rule of Evidence section
90.610(1) provides that: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the la...
...denied,
476 So.2d 675 (Fla.1985), disapproved of on other grounds, Riechmann *415 v. State,
581 So.2d 133 (Fla.1991). Similarly, Charles Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, section 610.6 (2007 Ed.), supports the need to have both the knowledge and a certified copy of a conviction before the questions may be asked: Although section
90.610 speaks only to which convictions are admissible to impeach and not to the procedure that should be followed during the trial in examining a witness about prior convictions, Florida appellate decisions have established the method of using the convictions....
...[Citing Peterson.] Under the rationale of these cases, counsel can attack credibility based upon a “rap sheet.” Others have rejected this relaxation and continue to require the certified copy. [Citing Williams.] The Florida courts should continue to require counsel cross-examining concerning a section 90.610 conviction to possess a judgment of conviction....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2062, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15691
...On appeal the appellant urges error in the limitation of cross examination of the victim, which point we find to be without merit. Wright v. State,
446 So.2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); King v. State,
431 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Cummings v. State,
412 So.2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13877, 2004 WL 2101896
...State,
647 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), review denied,
659 So.2d 270 (Fla.1995), for the trial court, to have- precluded the prosecutor from inquiring — beyond the admitted fact that the testifying defendant had previous, felony convictions, see §
90.610, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9695, 1995 WL 544141
...o appellant’s advantage. We hold that the trial court did not err by amending Florida Standard Jury Instruction
2.04 and by instructing the jury accordingly. In Bobb v. State,
647 So.2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), the court explained the evolution of section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1993) which permits a party to impeach a witness with evidence that he or she has been convicted of a felony or a crime involving dishonesty or a false statement....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8854, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1921
...e where the suggested procedure is not followed. In Cummings , the court addressed the proper form of questions to be asked when attacking a witness’s credibility on the basis of past convictions under the newly enacted evidence code, specifically section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1979)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2101, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15752
...r was punishable up to either two or five years, as Belton now argues, is of no moment since it is undisputed on this record that the crime is considered in Michigan and in Florida to involve a dishonest act and, therefore, falls within the scope of section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1988)....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...As to the seventh Brady claim, Walker’s ,1989 shoplifting conviction, we agree with the post-conviction court’s conclusion that the fact of the conviction standing alone is not material. We also agree that because the conviction was not disclosed and could have been used to impeach Walker under section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1989), 2 the postconviction court properly considered it along with the other six Brady claims and the newly discovered CBLA evidence in the cumulative materiality analysis....
...8, he was arrested in another criminal case and sentenced to prison. Further, because Walker’s obstruction conviction was not a crime of dishonesty or false statement, it could not have been used to impeach her credibility at Smith’s trial under section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes, or any other provision of the Florida Evidence Code....
...olice, about when Smith was. at her house conflicted ^ with statements by others about where he was during that time. Smith v. State,
75 So.3d 205, 206 (Fla. 2011) (quoting Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr,, 572 F,3d 1327, 1348 (11th Cir. 2009)). . Section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes, provides that evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime may be used to attack the credibility of a witness, if the crime was a felony or a crime involving dishonesty or a false statement....
...1984) ("It is our view that the commission of. petit theft, or any other offense falling within the scope of chapter 812, Florida Statutes (1981), necessarily involves ‘dishonesty’ so as to bring any conviction for such a crime within the scope of subsection 90.610(1).” (Footnote omitted.))....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 5076096
...Section
90.608, Florida Statutes, (2008), lists the grounds for impeaching a witness. One of the permissible grounds for impeachment is to attack the character of the witness by showing that he or she had been convicted of a crime. This subject is addressed in more detail in section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes, (2008), which states in material part:
90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment.— (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in exce...
...d is sufficient). This case illustrates the wisdom of this rule. A certified copy of the conviction showing that the witness was adjudicated guilty of the offense is the most reliable way to prove that the witness was convicted within the meaning of section 90.610(1)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18097, 2012 WL 4897046
...ted). Also unconvincing are the former employee’s cited cases which define “convicted” in other contexts to require a guilty plea or adjudication. See State v. McFadden,
772 So.2d 1209, 1214 (Fla.2000) (“Defining ‘conviction’ [as used in section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1997),] to require the adjudication of guilt is consistent with this Court’s jurisprudence.”); State v....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21407
...State,
335 So.2d 280 (Fla.1976). It further appears that Dunlap was never convicted of robbery as an adult. Although appellate counsel for Dunlap indicates that he had a juvenile adjudication of robbery, *855 such would not be admissible at trial under section
90.610(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1979)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...4th DCA 2013).
4
Generally, impeachment by prior convictions “is restricted to
determining if the witness has previously been convicted of a crime, and if
so, how many times.” Ross v. State,
913 So. 2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA
2005); see also §
90.610, Fla....
...This is particularly true here where, after finding appellant opened
the door, the court permitted evidence of appellant’s convictions for grand
theft and burglary of a dwelling. Such evidence was an impermissible
attack on appellant’s credibility. See Ross,
913 So. 2d at 1186; §
90.610,
Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 19940, 2006 WL 3422373
...Before WELLS, CORTIAS, and ROTHENBERG, JJ. CORTIAS, Judge. We consider whether or not a criminal conviction for failure to file a federal income tax return under 26 U.S.C. ß 7203 constitutes a conviction involving dishonesty or a false statement for impeachment purposes under section 90.610 of the Florida Statutes....
...Gelbard with five prior misdemeanor convictions for willful failure to file federal income tax returns, arguing that willful failure to file a tax return is a crime involving dishonesty or a false statement and, therefore, is admissible for impeachment purposes under section 90.610(1) of the Florida Statutes....
...Thus, the Second Circuit explicitly encouraged prosecutors to look beyond the face of a conviction, a practice that the Florida Supreme Court has rejected. State v. Page,
449 So.2d 813, 816 (Fla.1984)(holding that petit theft is per se a crime involving dishonesty or false statement under section
90.610(1) and disapproving of the practice of "conducting a `trial within a trial' to determine whether an affirmative misstatement or misrepresentation of fact was involved in the commission of the crime," the conviction of which is sought to be introduced for impeachment purposes)....
...Instead, the trial judge properly recognized that he was not to conduct a `trial within a trial' *474 and made his ruling based solely on the case law presented to him and his own legal intellect. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion. Affirmed. NOTES [1] Section 90.610(1) of the Florida Statutes is the state counterpart to Rule 609(a)(1)-(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. As such, cases interpreting Rule 609 are persuasive authority for courts interpreting section 90.610(1). See ß 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 821771
...The record demonstrates that at trial, the witness truthfully answered questions regarding his prior felony conviction and volunteered that the conviction was twenty years old. The trial court did not err in not allowing defense counsel to impeach the witness by questioning him about prior arrests. Section
90.610, Florida Statutes, provides for attack on the credibility of a witness through questioning about prior convictions, not arrests. "A witness may not be interrogated as to former arrests or other accusations of crimes." Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 610.4 (1998). See Torres-Arboledo v. State,
524 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla.) (an arrest is not admissible to impeach under §
90.610), cert....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...of the Second District in Foster, which held that once the State introduces a portion
of the defendant’s statement into evidence, the defendant is entitled to have the
1. Here, the impeachment was with the defendant’s prior convictions.
Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2014), provides: “A party may attack the
credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has
been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in
exces...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4667, 1996 WL 228618
...Pierce to impeach Theresa Wilson, Brenda Wilson and George Wilson by inquiring of their prior arrest records, and the specifies of their criminal convictions. The evidence was not probative of any issue other than witness credibility, Torres-Arboledo v. State,
524 So.2d 403 (Fla.1988). §
90.610, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...been convicted of filing a false police report and the previous event was both
remote in time and factually dissimilar, it constituted prohibited, unduly
prejudicial character evidence. See §
794.022(2), Fla. Stat.; §
90.404, Fla.
Stat.; §
90.402, Fla. Stat.; §
90.610, Fla....
...In a later
decision, Pantoja v. State,
59 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2011), the court addressed
the admissibility of evidence of a prior false accusation in a sexual battery
prosecution. There, relying upon a false reporting exception to the criminal
conviction requirement in section
90.610, Florida Statutes and the
Confrontation Clause, Pantoja sought to elicit testimony the alleged victim
had previously falsely accused her uncle of molesting her. Pantoja,
59 So.
3d at 1096; see §
90.610(1)(b), Fla....
...Evidence of juvenile
adjudications are inadmissible under this subsection.”) (emphasis added).
The victim denied recanting or fabricating the earlier incident and had not
been charged with filing a false police report. Pantoja,
59 So. 3d at 1095. A
plurality of the court determined section
90.610 “does not permit an
10
exception to the conviction requirement for prior false accusations” and “[t]he
only proper inquiry,” in such circumstances “goes to the witness’s reputation
for truth and veracity.” Id....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20057
...conviction was for the crime of perjury, may be given to affect the credibility of the said witness, and such conviction may be proved by questioning the proposed witness, or if he deny it, by producing a record of his conviction. [Emphasis added.] Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which he was convicted .......
...Neither statute permits the elicitation of the nature of the crime, because any additional light on his credibility would not compensate for the possible prejudicial effect on the minds of the jurors. See, e.g., Davis v. State,
397 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) [construing Section
90.610; Goodman v....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3798, 1990 WL 70511
...Appellant’s main contention is that the prosecutor’s conduct during his trial was objectionable and amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. The State concedes that the prosecutor exceeded all permissible bounds by repeatedly asking the defendant about the details of his prior convictions. See § 90.610, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...ancillary matters.
I. The Record Conclusively Refutes Mr. Parks' Claim
Mr. Parks claims that trial counsel was ineffective "[f]or informing
[Mr.] Parks not to testify in his own trial because he would be impeached
by juvenile adjudications." Section 90.610(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014),
prohibits using juvenile adjudications to attack witness credibility....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7069, 2015 WL 2214148
...“1) introducing
statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness’s
present testimony; 2) showing that the witness is biased; [or] 3) attacking
the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of sections
90.609 or
90.610.” If a party chooses to impeach by attacking the
character of a witness, it must do so by admitting evidence in the form of
reputation (under section
90.609) or conviction of certain crimes (under
section
90.610)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4349, 2011 WL 1135168
...Evidentiary rulings on the admission of evidence of other crimes are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Zerbe v. State,
944 So.2d 1189, 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). However, the trial court’s discretion is restricted by the rules of evidence. Nardone v. State,
798 So.2d 870, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Subsection
90.610(1) of the Florida Evidence Code provides: A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in exces...
...There, the court found that while generally the nature of the conviction may -not be revealed, where the conviction was for perjury, an exception is made because of its greater weight against the credibility of a witness than any other crime. However, Johnson interpreted section 90.08, the predecessor to section 90.610....
...“Evidence of such conviction, including the fact that the prior conviction was for the crime of perjury, may be given to affect the credibility -of the said witness, and such conviction may be proved by questioning the proposed witness or, if he deny it, by producing a record of his conviction.” Section 90.610(1) removed the special status of perjury convictions....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 836932, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2958
...dishonesty?” Defense counsel objected to the last question, but the trial court
erroneously concluded that the question was proper and allowed it. The question
was asked at trial, and Appellant truthfully answered that one of his six felonies was
a crime of dishonesty.
Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2016), provides:
A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused,
by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime
was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the
law under which the witness was convicted, or if the crime involved
dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment...
It is well settled that pursuant to section 90.610, Florida Statutes, “when a
witness has been convicted of a felony, the other party may not inquire further into
whether the felony involved dishonesty or false statement because doing so ‘would
have the impermissible and uninten...
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12489
witness’ credibility may be impeached under section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1981).1 We hold that
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...Penney Co.,
813 So.2d 1042, 1044 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2002). 3 A conviction “so remote in time as to have no bearing on the present
character of the witness” is inadmissible. Children’s Palace, Inc. v. Johnson,
609
So.2d 755, 757 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) (citing FLA. STAT. §
90.610)....
CopyPublished | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31527, 2011 WL 1103888
...Finally, Ms. Ballard testified that she had previously been convicted of two felonies ( id. at 52). Under Florida law, it would have been improper for defense counsel to inquire as to the nature of Ms. Ballard's prior felony convictions. Florida Statutes section 90.610 provides that a party may attack the credibility of any witness, including the accused, by evidence of a prior felony conviction. Fla. Stat. § 90.610 (2003)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15171
...appeal by the defendant. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial. BOARDMAN, C. J., and OTT, J., concur. . We note that the new Evidence Code, Ch. 76-237, effective July 1, 1977, provides in Section 90.610: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or a false statement, with the following exceptions: (a) Evidence of any such...
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3200
...State,
128 So.
9Lamb alleged that the conviction was for “breaking and entering.”
10As reflected in Lamb’s motion and by the convictions in this case, the victim is a
child. We note that if the adjudication occurred when the victim was a minor, section
90.610(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009), makes evidence of juvenile adjudications
inadmissible for impeachment purposes.
6
3d 44, 46 (Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 9109, 2006 WL 1569915
...commit larceny.” Bowers then admitted that he had been to prison on some of the charges. Bowers’ counsel did not object to any of these questions. By taking the stand to testify, Bowers’ prior criminal record became subject to disclosure. See § 90.610, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8026, 2000 WL 826954
...4th DCA 1996), he would have preserved for appeal the propriety of the court’s denial of such evidence. Nevertheless, because his request encompassed some crimes so remote in *768 time, we must affirm the court’s discretion in limiting his examination. See § 90.610(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...ion was sought. Furthermore, it is often the case with impeachment that the jury is not told every detail about the information used to impeach a witness. For example, when impeachment involves disclosing the witness's prior felony convictions under section 90.610, the jury usually hears only the number of such convictions without any information regarding the crimes for which the witness was convicted, even if otherwise relevant, such as convictions of perjury in previous trials....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 2751049, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 9240
...defendant objects. Appellant is correct that the State would not have been permitted to elicit testimony from Greene that he was currently incarcerated. Therefore, it was error to require Greene to wear jail clothes that testified to that fact. See §
90.610, Fla. Stat.; *1109 Mosley v. State,
91 So.3d 928, 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting section
90.610 limits the impeachment of a witness based on her criminal record to asking how many of certain convictions she has, and if she answers falsely, the introduction of certified copies of those convictions)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 8429
...Here, the defendant argues the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to exclude reference to the false police report filed by the victim in the unrelated incident. However, both the rules of evidence and case law support the trial court’s decision. See, e.g., §
90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2006); Jackson,
545 So.2d at 264 . “The plain language of section
90.610, Florida Statutes, authorizes impeachment with only prior convictions; there is no exception written into or considered by the statute.” Roebuck,
953 So.2d at 43 (emphasis in original)....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8310, 2004 WL 1283778
...enter, because those events were remote in time, and there was no evidence that her ability to recall events was impaired. We think the trial judge was correct on each evidentiary issue. The evidence of the clerk’s prior convictions is governed by section 90.610, Florida Statutes (2003), which permits impeachment by evidence “that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year ......
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8456, 2011 WL 2268982
...Prior to her testimony, the State successfully moved to prohibit defense counsel from attempting to impeach M.J. with evidence of a prior juvenile adjudication and the fact that she was still on juvenile probation. In granting the State's motion in limine, the trial court relied on section 90.610(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), which provides that evidence of juvenile adjudications are inadmissible for purposes of attacking the credibility of a witness....
...to this issue. After appointment, appellate counsel shall promptly file a new notice of appeal referencing this opinion. See generally Barnes v. State,
993 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Petition GRANTED. ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] §
90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in e...
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2682759, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11033
...and by the principles of stare decisis.” Johnson v. State,
969 So.2d 938, 949 (Fla.2007) (citation omitted). A trial court does not abuse its discretion unless no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Scott v. State,
717 So.2d 908, 911 (Fla.1998). Section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2011), provides as follows: *930 A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprison...
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1494, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8728
...Castillo appeals from his conviction for burglary. We affirm his conviction because we find the claimed error to be harmless. At trial, Castillo’s defense depended primarily on his credibility. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Castillo if he had any prior felony convictions. See § 90.610, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10059
...witness by: (1) Introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony. (2) Showing that the witness is biased. (3) Attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of §
90.609 or §
90.610....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 12402, 2006 WL 2057278
...State,
814 So.2d 1159, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Thereafter, when Ray took the stand in his own defense, his counsel elicited the same admission, that Ray had eleven prior felony convictions. Generally, such evidence is admissible to attack the credibility of the witness. See §
90.610(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...sufficiently preserved the issue for appeal as a pro se litigant.
Merits
This issue concerns whether the trial court properly admitted Wilcox’s prior
criminal record as a form of impeachment. Pursuant to section 90.610, Florida
Statutes (2008), the State may attack the credibility of a witness, including the
accused, by introducing evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if
(1) the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in e...
...lcox was a dishonest felon whose
testimony should not be believed. However, when a witness has been convicted of
a felony, the State may not inquire further into whether the felony involved
dishonesty or a false statement because the intent of subsection 90.610(1) is to
allow impeachment for all felonies, regardless of whether they involve dishonesty
or a false statement, but to limit impeachment concerning misdemeanors to only
those that involve dishonesty or a false statement....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 217, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6261
...rgument to the jury that the “theft” was actually a scheme initiated by the victim. As a witness Sloan could have been impeached on the basis of his felony record regardless of whether that same record was needed as substantive proof of a crime. § 90.610, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Oct 24, 2023
...nd was never convicted of passing worth-
less checks. Mungin has not argued, and we do not address, whether Kirkland
should have been impeached for passing worthless checks apart from his pro-
bationary status. See Fla. Stat. § 90.610.
USCA11 Case: 22-13616 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/08/2024 Page: 18 of 29
18 Opinion of the Court 22-13616
to raise the recalled warrants at trial....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18540
...See Coolidge v. New Hampshire,
403 U.S. 443 ,
91 S.Ct. 2022 ,
29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). Reversed and remanded for a new trial. . We deem it significant that Plasencia did not testify at trial, thus neither section
90.608(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), nor section
90.610, Florida Statutes (1981), are implicated....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18703
...However, for the edification of the trial bench and bar, we will address the issue of whether defense counsel opened the door to inquiry into the nature of appellant’s prior conviction. We hold that defense counsel did not open the door by bringing out that the prior conviction was on appeal. Section 90.610(2), Florida Statutes (1981), which provides that the penden-cy of an appeal does not render evidence of the conviction from which the appeal was taken inadmissible, goes on to add that evidence of the pendency of the appeal is admissible....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 27768
...However, we find the issue raised in Hall and this case concerning impeachment of a defendant to be a question of great public importance. We therefore certify the following question pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution (1972): WHETHER THE STATE IS PREVENTED BY SECTION 90.610(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1981), FROM IMPEACHING A DEFENDANT BY USE OF A PRIOR PETIT THEFT CONVICTION WITHOUT SHOWING THAT SUCH CRIME INVOLVES SOME ELEMENT OF DECEIT, UNTRUTHFULNESS, OR FALSIFICATION BEARING UPON THE DEFENDANT’S CAPACITY TO TESTIFY TRUTHFULLY....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17135, 2001 WL 1539154
...guilt of the defendant {Brady material), this provision, as it relates to criminal history information, would only require the state to disclose certain convictions for witnesses intended to be called and whom are subject to impeachment pursuant to section 90.610, Florida Statutes, or to disclose pending criminal proceedings against such witnesses....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2672, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17135
disclosure on cross-examination of prior convictions, §
90.610, Fla.Stat. (1983), the defense counsel on redirect
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18027, 2015 WL 7752723
...A defendant or other witness can be impeached with evidence that
he has been convicted of a crime punishable by death or prison for more
than one year under the law under which he was convicted, or evidence of
a conviction involving dishonesty or false statement. See § 90.610(1), Fla.
Stat....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11396, 2017 WL 3361068
...The Florida rules of evidence allow a party in a civil trial to impeach a witness
with a prior felony conviction or any conviction for a crime of dishonesty so long as
the conviction is not so remote in time as to have no bearing on the present character
of the witness. § 90.610(1)(a), Fla....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
evidence that went unused by trial counsel. See §
90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). However, we need not “delve
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
evidence from “years earlier” is consistent with section
90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2015), which permits
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11131, 1999 WL 628974
...3 Further, the state moved to exclude testimony that the victim had been convicted of attaching a tag not assigned to his vehicle. Lawton argues that the court abused its discretion by granting the state’s motion since this case involved the credibility of Lawton and the victim. He contends that section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes allows a witness’ credibility to be impeached with prior convictions if the crime involved dishonesty or false statement, and that the plea to a charge involving drugs and the conviction for a crime involving dishonesty, the tag case, were appropriate for impeachment....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ision.
Furthermore, Marshall’s attorney did not interfere with his
ability to voluntarily make this decision by misadvising him
regarding the law. Marshall’s prior convictions were not
admissible unless he testified in his own defense. See § 90.610(1),
Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21209
...The State, on the other hand, argues that it never attempted to impeach appellant, but that the incriminating evidence was adduced by appellant during his own direct examination. We hold that the trial judge was wrong in his conclusion about the proper procedure to be followed in' impeaching a witness under Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1980 Fla. LEXIS 4196
crime involved dishonesty or a false statement.” §
90.610(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). Obviously, this event is
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5837, 1995 WL 254338
...pensity to commit crime. Furthermore, since Petitioner took the stand in his own defense, the State could have brought out his felony convictions to impeach Petitioner even if he had not admitted his criminal history on direct examination. Fla.Stat. § 90.610(1) ("A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of [a felony]")....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33443, 2008 WL 1848783
...ished federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. Further, this ineffectiveness claim is without merit. See Response at 26-28. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 90.610(1), a party may attack the credibility of a witness by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a felony or a crime involving dishonesty....
...H at 55-56) cites to Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2), which refers to the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. [12] See Tr. at 77-78. [13] See Ex. D; Ex. E; Ex. F. [14] Theft is a crime of dishonesty under § 90.610....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5566, 2011 WL 1485608
...o believe the prisoner guilty. Id. at 685,
106 So. at 488. Straight v. State,
397 So.2d 903, 909 (Fla. 1981). The Florida Evidence Code does provide an exception to this rule so that certain prior convictions can be admitted as impeachment evidence. Section
90.610, Florida Statutes (2008), titled "Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment," provides that a party may attack the credibility of a witness with evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime punishable by a year or more in prison or a crime involving dishonesty or false statement. §
90.610(1)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4967, 2002 WL 561693
...ct ... is an eminently fair one”). Next, Trowell suggests that he is entitled to a new trial on damages because the trial court erred in ruling that he could be impeached with convictions that took place more than ten years prior to the trial. See § 90.610, Fla....
...not be used for impeachment purposes absent a showing that “the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.” The law, however, is simply not the same in Florida. Section 90.610, Florida Statutes, contains no such time limitation. In fact, the notes from the Law Revision Counsel, published with the annotated version of section 90.610, Florida Statutes, clearly reflect that the committee expressly declined to adopt “an arbitrary number of years” to be used in assessing remoteness and admissibility....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...cross-examine the State’s eyewitness as to his arrest for aggravated assault upon his
neighbor. As there was no basis to admit the eyewitness’ prior unrelated arrest for
2
aggravated assault, we disagree.
Section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (2018), provides: “A party may attack the
credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has
been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in
ex...
...involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment . . . .” In the
instant case, although the State’s eyewitness was arrested for aggravated assault, he
was not convicted. Therefore, there is no basis to admit his arrest for aggravated
assault under section 90.610(1)....
