Bauta v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Bauta v. State

26 Fla. Supp. 2d 157

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1988

DocketCase No. 86-147 AC (County Case No. LL-Z0305,6)

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Fla. Supp. 2d 157 (Bauta v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bauta v. State, 26 Fla. Supp. 2d 157 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM. DONNER, J.

[158]*158It has been a long standing principle of our system of justice to exclude relevant evidence where its prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value. In the instant case, there is a great probability that the jury based its conviction of the Defendant on an improper basis, namely, his past acts.

The prosecuting attorney, over the timely objection of defense counsel, asked the technician why the Defendant refused the breathalyzer test. The technician responded, “His statement was that he was not taking any kind of a test, that — his statement exactly was he had been arrested before for D.U.I. and he knows not to take the test, any kind of test.”

At the very least, a curative instruction should have been given. This Court reverses the Trial Judge’s decision, holding that a mistrial should have been granted the Defendant, given the prejudicial effect caused by the testimony of the technician.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM. DONNER, J.

[158]*158It has been a long standing principle of our system of justice to exclude relevant evidence where its prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value. In the instant case, there is a great probability that the jury based its conviction of the Defendant on an improper basis, namely, his past acts.

The prosecuting attorney, over the timely objection of defense counsel, asked the technician why the Defendant refused the breathalyzer test. The technician responded, “His statement was that he was not taking any kind of a test, that — his statement exactly was he had been arrested before for D.U.I. and he knows not to take the test, any kind of test.”

At the very least, a curative instruction should have been given. This Court reverses the Trial Judge’s decision, holding that a mistrial should have been granted the Defendant, given the prejudicial effect caused by the testimony of the technician.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Fla. Supp. 2d 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauta-v-state-flacirct-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack