DAMEIAN DEVAUGHAN BIBBS, 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 trial court erred by refusing to allow the defendant to testify about his prior convictions resulting from pleas, and that a jury instruction was not supported by the evidence.
The defendant was convicted of burglary, grand theft, and criminal mischief. The trial court refused to allow the defendant to testify that his prior …
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 Anticipatory Rehabilitation cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Chief Judge.
Dameian DeVaughan Bibbs raises several issues in this appeal following his convictions for burglary of a structure, grand theft, and criminal mischief. We agree that the trial court erred by refusing to allow Bibbs to testify regarding his prior convictions. Accordingly, we reverse.
The trial court refused to allow Bibbs to testify that his prior convictions resulted from pleas. This was error. “Questions concerning prior pleas are proper anticipatory rehabilitation and the effect of such questioning is to ‘ameliorate the highly negative effect the knowledge of the past convictions [is] likely to have to the jury’s perception of the defendant in terms of both his character and his credibility.’ ” Sullivan v. State, 751 So. 2d 128, 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (alteration in original) (quoting Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519, 523 (Fla.1986)). Because Bibbs’ credibility was at issue, we cannot say that the error was harmless. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Because this case must be retried, we comment on one other issue that may arise again. Bibbs argues that the trial court erred by giving the Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 3.01(a) titled “Principals — When Active Participant Hired by Defendant.” We agree that the instruction was not supported by the evidence. See Lovette v. State, 654 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
NORTHCUTT, J., and RAMSBERGER, PETER, (Associate) Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1986)
- Lovette v. State, 654 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Sullivan v. State, 751 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)