VIRGILIO BLASCO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed defendant Blasco's conviction despite finding that the prosecutor improperly impeached his testimony by asking about prior convictions without introducing conviction records. The court adopted a bright-line rule requiring prosecutors to ask only two specific questions about prior convictions as a predicate to impeachment under Florida Statute § 90.610(1).
The court held that as a predicate to impeachment under Florida Statute § 90.610(1), a prosecutor may ask only two questions: 'Have you ever been convicted of a felony?' and 'Have you ever been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement?' The prosecutor must have conviction records available before asking such questions. The prosecutor's questioning in this case was improper because it did not follow this prescribed form and because conviction records were not introduced into evidence.
[1] To contradict a witness by past convictions, a record of such convictions must be introduced into evidence.
[2] Questions regarding past convictions should not be asked unless the prosecutor has knowledge that the witness has been convicted of a crime and has the evidence necessary…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To contradict a witness by past convictions a record of such convictions must be introduced into evidence.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that conviction records must be presented when impeaching testimony about prior convictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial, defendant Blasco testified that he had been convicted of only one prior crime. The state attempted to impeach this testimony by question…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Improper Impeachment cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
In an attempt to impeach defendant Blas-co’s statement during trial that he had previously been convicted of only one crime, the state “refreshed” his memory by questioning him concerning the nature of other convictions, without introducing conviction records. All but one of the convictions were of misdemeanors and did not involve dishonesty or false statements which would have permitted their use for impeachment. The questions posed by the state constituted improper impeachment under the procedure outlined in Cummings v. State, 412 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), which we adopt.
To contradict a witness by past convictions a record of such convictions must be introduced into evidence. Rommell v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 394 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Questions regarding past convictions should not be asked unless the prosecutor has knowledge that the witness has been convicted of a crime and has the evidence necessary for impeachment if the witness fails to admit the number 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. . . .
Id. at 439. See also McClellan v. State, 417 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, however, reversal is not appropriate. Houston v. State, 337 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Lockwood v. State, 107 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 111 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1959).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brinson v. State, 483 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ic nature of his past convictions was impermissible, Vause v. State, 424 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), it is clear that the harmless error rule may preclude reversal on this issue. State v. Young, 283 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Blasco v. State, 419 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Here, the evidence of Bernard Brinson’s guilt — which included the eyewitness identification of him by both Mr. and Mrs. Yawn, as well as Craig Stevens’ testimony placing him at the scene of the crime — was overwhelming. We find…
-
Florencio Alvarez v. State, 467 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…witness fails to admit the number of convictions of such crimes.” Cummings v. State, 412 So. 2d 436, 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See Parks v. Zitnik, 453 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); King v. State, 431 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Blasco v. State, 419 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The requirement that the attorney have the evidence necessary for impeachment merely assures that he will not ask questions which suggest a certain set of facts in the absence of a good faith belief that those facts are true. See…
-
Gore v. State, 573 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…State, 511 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 519 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1987); Johnson v. State, 361 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 382 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1980). However, such error is subject to a harmless error analysis. Blasco v. State, 419 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In light of the overwhelming evidence against Gore, we hold that the erroneous admission of the prior convictions and the underlying documents was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lockwood v. State, 107 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Cummings v. State, 412 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Cochran v. Cochran, 412 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Rommell v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 394 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Houston v. State, 337 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- O'Connor v. Town of Pass-A-Grille Beach, 111 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1959)
- Maule Indus., Inc. v. Sheffield, 111 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1959)
- McCLELLAN v. State, 417 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)