LIZERT JEAN, 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.
Lizert Jean appeals his convictions for sexual battery, armed robbery, burglary, and aggravated battery, challenging the trial court's limitations on cross-examination of a co-defendant witness and claiming a mistrial should have been granted due to a polygraph reference. The appellate court affirms, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination to relevant matters within its authority under Florida law. A mistrial was not warranted because the prosecutor's reference to a potential future polygraph examination, without revealing results or creating a clear inference of polygraph passage, is not necessarily prejudicial.
[1] A trial court has discretion to limit cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding factual details of unrelated prior cases.
[2] A reference to a potential polygraph examination in a plea agreement is not necessarily prejudicial if no inference as to the result is raised or if any inferences are no…
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“The trial court allowed defendant to cross examine Hernandez regarding the terms of the plea agreement and the reduced sentence he had obtained. The court precluded defendant from asking Hernandez about the factual details of the other home invasion robbery (case number 98-2046) because that case was wholly unrelated to the pending case against this defendant. The ruling was within the court's discretion.”
Establishes that trial court properly limited cross-examination under discretionary authority regarding relevance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLizert Jean was convicted of sexual battery, armed robbery, burglary, and aggravated battery. Edison Hernandez, a co-defendant, entered into a plea ag…
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 Prejudicial Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lizert Jean appeals his convictions for sexual battery, armed robbery, burglary, and aggravated battery. We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Jean contends that the trial court impermissibly limited his cross examination of prosecution witness Edison Hernandez. Hernandez was a co-defendant in this case. He entered into a plea agreement with the State whereby he testified against defendant in exchange for a reduced sentence in this case and an unrelated home invasion robbery, circuit court case number 98-2046.
The trial court allowed defendant to cross examine Hernandez regarding the terms of the plea agreement and the reduced sentence he had obtained. The court precluded defendant from asking Hernandez about the factual details of the other home invasion robbery (case number 98-2046) because that case was wholly unrelated to the pending case against this defendant. The ruling was within the court’s discretion. Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982); see also § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1997).
Defendant also contends that the trial court should have granted a mistrial after the State, on redirect examination of Hernandez, brought out the fact that under the plea agreement, Hernandez could be required to take a polygraph examination. We are inclined to agree with the trial court that the defense opened the door to this inquiry by its cross examination. However, during the sidebar discussion of the defense objection, the State withdrew the question and the defense stated that it did not want a curative instruction.
It is very clear from the state’s question that under the plea agreement, Hernandez could be required to take a polygraph examination in the future but had not yet done so. This is not a case in which the question directly or indirectly told the jury of the results of a lie detector test. A reference to a polygraph “is not necessarily prejudicial if no inference as to the result is raised or if any inferences that might be raised as to the result are not prejudicial.” Hutchins v. State, 334 So. 2d 112, 113-14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (citation omitted); Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632, 635 (Fla.1974).
In the case relied on by the defendant, Simeon v. State, 520 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the State witness had taken a polygraph test and told the jury so. The inference was inescapable that the State witness had passed the polygraph test and since the jury would have realized this, a new trial was ordered. Id. at 82-83. Those are not the circumstances present here.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
White v. State, 76 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…the result is raised or if any inferences that might be raised as to the result are not prejudicial.’ Hutchins v. State, 834 So. 2d 112, 113-14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (citation omitted); Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632, 635 (Fla.1974).” Jean v. State, 789 So. 2d 550, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). See McFadden, 540 So. 2d at 846 (“[I]t appears the test was never taken and no results were mentioned nor inferred. Under these circumstances it appears to us that under the law in this state there were no legitimate grounds…
-
Trent Albury v. State, 835 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ed the test. See e.g., Olivera v. State, 813 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) and cases cited. Where no such inference can be drawn, as in this case, the error has been found to be harmless. Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1974); Jean v. State, 789 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Hutchins v. State, 334 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Recognizing that his case falls into the class of cases in which the error has been held harmless, appellant argues that we should follow United States v. Hilton, 772 F. 2d 7…
-
Burrough v. State, 943 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…Affirmed. See Moore v. State, 701 So. 2d 545, 548-49 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1083, 118 S.Ct. 1536, 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998); Rodriguez v. State, 906 So. 2d 1082, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), affirmed, 920 So. 2d 624 (Fla.2005); Jean v. State, 789 So. 2d 550, 550-51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Slocum v. State, 757 So. 2d 1246, 1250-51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), cause dismissed, 814 [*1026] So. 2d 441 (Fla.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 924, 123 S.Ct. 316, 154 L.Ed.2d 214 (2002); Bauta v. State, 698 So. 2d 860, 862-63…
Authorities Cited
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1974)
- Hutchins v. State, 334 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Simeon v. State, 520 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)