IN THE INTEREST OF I. S. H., A CHILD
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.
A juvenile adjudicated delinquent for armed robbery appeals, challenging the trial court's use of a prior juvenile adjudication to impeach his trial testimony. The court held that Florida law prohibits impeachment by prior juvenile adjudications, as such adjudications are statutorily deemed not to be convictions.
No. Under Florida Statutes § 39.10(5), a juvenile adjudication is not deemed a conviction, and therefore a witness or defendant may not be impeached by evidence of prior juvenile adjudications. The trial court committed reversible error in allowing such impeachment.
[1] A witness may not be impeached by a showing of prior juvenile adjudications.
[2] A juvenile adjudication is not a conviction for the purpose of impeaching a witness.
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“An adjudication by a court that a child is a . . . delinquent child shall not be deemed a conviction, nor shall the child be deemed to have been found guilty or to be a criminal by reason of that adjudication . . .”
Statutory prohibition that juvenile adjudications are not convictions and cannot form the basis for impeachment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant-juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for committing a robbery while carrying a weapon. The juvenile testified on his own behalf at trial.…
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 Adjudication Of Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge.
The appellant-juvenile was adjudicated a delinquent below based upon a finding that he committed a robbery while carrying a weapon. The trial judge, over defense counsel’s objection, permitted the state on cross-examination to impeach the testimony he had offered on his own behalf by demonstrating that he had previously been adjudicated a delinquent.1 This was reversible error. Pursuant to Section 90.08, Florida Statutes (1975), any witness may be impeached upon a showing of his “conviction of any crime.” Section 39.10(5), Florida Statutes (1975), however, specifically provides that:
“An adjudication by a court that a child is a . . . delinquent child shall not be deemed a conviction, nor shall the child be deemed to have been found guilty or to be a criminal by reason of that adjudication . . .”
Applying the clear terms of identical or equivalent statutes, the courts have consistently held that a witness, and particularly a defendant, may not be impeached by a showing of prior juvenile adjudications. E. g., State v. Reynolds, 41 N.J. 163, 195 A. 2d 449 (1963), cert. den., 377 U.S. 1000, 84 S.Ct. 1930, 12 L.Ed.2d 1050 (1964); People v. Peele, 12 N.Y.2d 890, 237 N.Y.S.2d 999, 188 N.E. 2d 265 (1963); State v. Burr, 18 Or.App. 494, 525 P. 2d 1067 (1974); 81 Am.Jur.2d, Witnesses, § 575, pp. 580-581; see Jackson v. State, 336 So. 2d 633, 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We agree with these decisions. On this record, moreover, we cannot say that the error was harmless. The judgment below is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur. . The state showed further that a prior adjudication was for armed robbery. Even if (as, we hold, is not the case) any impeachment based on the earlier delinquency proceeding was correct, it was plainly im proper to go further than to show the existence and the number of “convictions;” the “crime” involved in a prior “conviction” may plainly not be established. Jackson v. State, 336 So. 2d 633, 635-636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Irvin v. State, 324 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Jones v. State, 305 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ware v. State, 389 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Crespo v. State, 344 So. 2d 598 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); see, In Interest of I.S.H., 344 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).…
-
In the Interest of M. E. G., 353 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…on-jury trial such error can be rendered harmless and in this case it was rendered harmless by the immediate revelation the Defendant later made a statement to the police officer, a confession. We have considered In The Interest of I.S.H., a child, 344 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and do not recede from that opinion, nor confirm this case as being in accord with it, since the record which was relied upon in that case is not available to us here. The Order appealed is AFFIRMED. CROSS, J., concurs. ANSTE…
-
Benedit v. State, 575 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…lesser proof, reversal would have been required. Evidence of juvenile charges or convictions, as the prosecutor had already been instructed by a pretrial order in liming, was inadmissible. § 90.610(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989); In the Interest of I.S.H., 344 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Despite the prosecutor’s comments, we affirm the conviction and sentence because the overwhelming evidence against the defendant showed a motive for the shooting, a plan of action, a search for a weapon, evidence that the defen…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. New Jersey, 377 U.S. 1000 (U.S. 1964)
- Randazzo v. California, 377 U.S. 1000 (U.S. 1964)
- Arthaniel Irvin v. State, 324 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Jones v. State, 305 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Jackson v. State, 336 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)