CITY OF MIAMI
v.
ROBERTS
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 Circuit Court reversed a municipal court conviction for passing a stop sign, holding that the trial court erred by admitting the defendant's statements to a police officer in violation of Florida Statute 317.17, which prohibits the use of police accident reports as evidence at trial.
The admission of the police officer's testimony regarding the defendant's statements was error under Florida Statute 317.17, which expressly provides that no accident report shall be used as evidence in any civil or criminal trial. The error was not harmless.
“This was error as section 317.17, Florida Statutes 1955, provides no such report shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal.”
States the controlling statutory prohibition that the municipal court violated by admitting the police officer's testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with passing a stop sign in Miami municipal court. At trial, a police officer testified about statements the defendant made …
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 Harmful Error Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on to be heard before me on appeal from a conviction in the municipal court of the city of Miami on a charge of passing a stop sign. The court having heard from counsel for the defendant and the city of Miami finds that—
The following colloquy took place in the trial of this case in the municipal court while the investigating officer of the city of Miami was testifying—
Q. (By Mr. O’Connell) Did you engage the defendant in any conversation?
A. I did.
Mr. Bieley: To which we are going to object, Mr. O’Connell.
Mr. O’Connell: The objection is premature.
The Court: The objection is denied. Go ahead.
Q. (By Mr. O’Connell) And did you question him about this accident?
*27 A. I did.
Q. And did you question him as to whether or not he went through the stop sign?
A. Yes, he said he didn’t see it.
Mr. Bieley: Just a minute. I want to object to that, your Honor.
The Court: The objection is overruled.
Mr. Bieley: Judge, under the cases ...
The Cojirt: Objection overruled, do you understand English?
Mr. Bieley: All right. We feel we ...
The Court: If you don’t agree with what I am saying, appeal under section 317.17 or otherwise. It is not a privileged communication. If you don’t believe me, appeal it.
Go ahead.
The Witness: Defendant stated that he never did see the stop sign.
The witness, a police officer — making an investigation as such police officer — was then permitted to testify as to what the defendant told him at the scene of the accident in answer to questions by said police officer.
This was error as section 317.17, Florida Statutes 1955, provides no such report shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal.
There are too many cases where our Supreme Court has ruled on this question to cite one of them and the law is too well settled to permit argument on the point.
The city contends it was not harmful error but this court thinks otherwise.
It is therefore ordered that the conviction, judgment and sentence of the judge of the municipal court of the city of Miami is reversed and a new trial ordered with all costs taxed against the appellee.