Bain v. State

691 So. 2d 508, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1972, 1997 WL 101312
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 7, 1997·No. No. 97-330·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

HARRIS, Judge.

Deviral Bain is before us on his fourth Rule 3.850 motion. He has been consistently [509] unsuccessful thus far and his luck has not changed. We affirm the trial court’s denial of his latest effort.

He claims “newly discovered” evidence that the State withheld impeachment evidence from the defense. He contends that this evidence is contained in an internal investigation file involving Officer Williams, who testified against him at trial. The problem with Bain’s current position is that the evidence is neither newly discovered nor is it admissible evidence. The information contained in the internal investigation file which is relied on by Bain, with due diligence, should have been discovered earlier. More damaging, however, is the fact that the claimed new evidence would have been inadmissible in any event. See Jackson v. State, 545 So.2d 260 (Fla.1989) (evidence of police officer’s department reprimands inadmissible as impeachment evidence as it concerned inadmissible general acts of misconduct; reprimand not a conviction).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bain v. State, 691 So. 2d 508, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1972, 1997 WL 101312 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

691 So. 2d 508 (Bain v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DONALD LAMORE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
Jones v. State
709 So. 2d 512 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)