CRAIG A. BROWN, 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.
Craig Brown was convicted of attempted second-degree murder, but the Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the prosecutor improperly commented during closing arguments that Brown's six prior felony convictions showed he was prone to violence, which constituted inadmissible propensity evidence.
The prosecutor's comment improperly used Brown's prior convictions to suggest propensity for violence rather than merely to impeach credibility, constituting harmful error requiring reversal and a new trial.
[1] Evidence of collateral crimes is inadmissible if it serves no purpose other than to prejudice the jury against the defendant.
[2] Collateral crime evidence may be admissible to establish the entire context out of which the criminal action occurred, but only if there is a factual connection between t…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A defendant's prior felony convictions are admissible to impeach his credibility, but they are inadmissible to show propensity.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle governing use of prior convictions in evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was charged with attempted second-degree murder for shooting a victim following a dispute over $30. The victim testified Brown simply shot him a…
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 Propensity Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Craig A. Brown, who was found guilty of attempted second-degree murder, appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial. The motion followed the prosecutor’s comment during closing arguments that a person with six criminal convictions, like Brown, was “prone to be a little hotheaded, maybe a little irrational, maybe go over the handle a little bit.” While no evidence was before the court as to what crimes were committed that led to the prior convictions, the comment suggests that the prior convictions were violent in nature, thus showing the propensity of Brown to commit the instant offense, shooting the victim following a discussion about $30 owed by Brown to the victim.
A defendant’s prior felony convictions are admissible to impeach his credibility, but they are inadmissible to show propensity. In Gore v. State, 573 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), the court stated the applicable law:
Once [the appellant] admitted that he had been convicted of prior crimes, including crimes involving dishonesty or false statement, the state could go no further. However, such error is subject to a harmless error analysis. Blasco v. State, 419 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Gore, at 90 (citations omitted). The comment in this ease was particularly critical because of the two uncorroborated and opposite versions of the events leading to the shooting. The victim’s version indicated that Brown simply turned around and shot him after a peaceful and unemotional discussion about the repayment of the $30. Brown, on the other hand, testified that, a few weeks prior to the shooting, the victim and another man had severely beaten him because of a debt he owed the victim for a previous drug purchase. The beating resulted in Brown’s hospitalization and one of his eyes being bandaged. On the day of the instant event, his eye was still bandaged, and Brown testified that, after he advised the victim that he had no money to repay the debt, the victim swung a bottle at him and hit him in his good eye with a gun that the victim pulled from his pocket. Blinded by the blow, Brown pulled his gun from his pocket and shot wildly, wounding the victim. Under these facts, the prosecutor’s comments, calculated to show bad character or a propensity for violence based upon unspecified previous convictions, constituted harmful error and were irrelevant to any material fact in issue. See Wilt v. State, 410 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
We reverse the judgment, vacate the sentence, and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hahn v. State, 626 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…stion the witness’s morals. See Dukes v. State, 356 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (disapproving the behavior of the state in asking a witness whether she was a prostitute, and arguing that such persons are not worthy of belief); and Brown v. State, 580 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (questions/comments calculated to show bad character are irrelevant). As “Kathy” was a crucial eye witness to the stabbing giving rise to the charges against Hahn, discrediting her in front of the jury was prejudicial to Hahn’s d…
-
Brown v. State, 610 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…is case, the comments were purposeful and come dangerously close to appearing calculated to win the favor of the jury in a case in which the deceased victim presented an image that could generously be characterized as unsavory.1 See, Brown v. State, 580 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Shortly after retiring to deliberate, the jury asked to be reinstructed on manslaughter as well as second-degree murder. Defense counsel asked the trial judge to reinstruct as well on justifiable homicide, specifically noting t…
Authorities Cited
- Wilt v. State, 410 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Gore v. State, 573 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Virgilio Blasco v. State, 419 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)