Belton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Belton v. State

475 So. 2d 275, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2101, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15752

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 10, 1985

DocketNo. 84-84

StatusPublished

This text of 475 So. 2d 275 (Belton 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

Belton v. State, 475 So. 2d 275, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2101, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15752 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with appellant Belton’s contention that the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of the state’s principal witness, Mary Burns, by precluding cross-examination with respect to an out-of-state conviction. Whether the crime in question (“joy-riding”) was punishable by not more than 90 days imprisonment, as the state represented below, or was punishable up to either two or five years, as Belton now argues, is of no moment since it is undisputed on this record that the crime is considered in Michigan and in Florida to involve a dishonest act and, therefore, falls within the scope of section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1988). See State v. Page, 449 So.2d 813 (Fla.1984); People v. Hayward, 127 Mich.App. 50, 338 N.W.2d 549 (1983). The fact-finder should have had the benefit of this probative impeachment evidence. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347, 353-54 (1974).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree with appellant Belton’s contention that the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of the state’s principal witness, Mary Burns, by precluding cross-examination with respect to an out-of-state conviction. Whether the crime in question (“joy-riding”) was punishable by not more than 90 days imprisonment, as the state represented below, or was punishable up to either two or five years, as Belton now argues, is of no moment since it is undisputed on this record that the crime is considered in Michigan and in Florida to involve a dishonest act and, therefore, falls within the scope of section 90.610(1), Florida Statutes (1988). See State v. Page, 449 So.2d 813 (Fla.1984); People v. Hayward, 127 Mich.App. 50, 338 N.W.2d 549 (1983). The fact-finder should have had the benefit of this probative impeachment evidence. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347, 353-54 (1974).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 So. 2d 275, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2101, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belton-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack