Bain v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bain v. State

691 So. 2d 508, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1972, 1997 WL 101312

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 1997

DocketNo. 97-330

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 691 So. 2d 508 (Bain v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, Judge.

Deviral Bain is before us on his fourth Rule 3.850 motion. He has been consistently [509]*509unsuccessful 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

HARRIS, Judge.

Deviral Bain is before us on his fourth Rule 3.850 motion. He has been consistently [509]*509unsuccessful 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 So. 2d 508, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1972, 1997 WL 101312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bain-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack