VALENTINO WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
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 court held that the admission of a portion of the defendant's statement regarding prior arrests and probation, made during Miranda advisement, was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine and moved in limine to exclude a statement made during his Miranda advisement. The trial judge denied…
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 Motion In Limine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine.
Appellant moved in limine to exclude a portion1 of his responses to the police when being advised of his Miranda rights. The trial judge denied the motion, finding the disputed part had a bearing on the issue of voluntariness (an issue never raised by the appellant).
We find the probative value of having the jury hear “he has been arrested before, he’s on probation” is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. § 90.403, Fla.Stat. (1987). Because the state candidly admits there is little evidence other than the confession to link the appellant to the crime charged, this court cannot find such error to be harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence, and remand for a new trial.
GUNTHER, STONE And GARRETT, JJ., concur. . "Okay, after that I asked him, do yoú understand each of these rights I have explained to you? And he said yes that he has been arrested before, he’s on probation.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. State, 751 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…d been in prison. See id. The fifth district noted that such edited testimony would still have explained to the jury why the victim feared the defendant and delayed reporting the incident. See id. Similarly, the fourth district in Williams v. State, 539 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) held that a defendant’s admission to having been previously arrested and to being then currently on probation, should not have been admitted into evidence because any probative value the statement might have had, in terms of expl…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)