Castillo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Castillo v. State

490 So. 2d 1066, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1494, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8728

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 8, 1986

DocketNo. 83-2527

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 490 So. 2d 1066 (Castillo 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

Castillo v. State, 490 So. 2d 1066, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1494, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8728 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Castillo appeals from his conviction for burglary. We affirm his conviction because we find the claimed error to be harmless.

At trial, Castillo’s defense depended primarily on his credibility. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Castillo if he had any prior felony convictions. See § 90.610, Fla.Stat. (1983). Castillo responded affirmatively. Castillo had only one pri- or felony conviction but the prosecutor never elicited this fact on cross-examination. Instead, he left the jury with, as Castillo contends, a false impression that Castillo had previously been convicted of numerous [1067]*1067crimes. On redirect examination, defense counsel attempted to dispel this false impression by asking Castillo how many prior convictions he had. Defense counsel’s effort was thwarted however when the court sustained the prosecutor’s objection to the question.

It is well established that a party may reexamine a witness on any matter raised during cross-examination. See Noeling v. State, 40 So.2d 120 (Fla.1949). On redirect examination a witness may provide testimony “which tends to qualify, limit or explain testimony elicited on cross-examination.” Hinton v. State, 347 So.2d 1079, 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 981 (Fla.1977). Since the prosecutor challenged Castillo’s credibility by raising his prior conviction, the trial judge should have permitted Castillo to explain and limit the impact of the cross-examination by clarifying on redirect examination that he had only a single prior conviction.¹

Although we recognize the trial court’s error, we affirm the conviction because the error did not adversely affect Castillo’s substantial rights. See § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1985); Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648, 653 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 369, 70 L.Ed.2d 195 (1981). After carefully considering all the relevant circumstances, including the weight and quality of the evidence, see Palmes, and the fact that Castillo’s counsel indirectly informed the jury during closing argument that Castillo had only one prior conviction, we are convinced that the error did not affect the result below. See Brantley v. State, 279 So.2d 290 (Fla.1973); Warren v. State, 270 So.2d 8 (Fla.1972).

Whether considered on its own or in conjunction with the first point on appeal, Castillo’s final point on appeal is without merit. See Wilkins v. State, 383 So.2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Accordingly, the judgment on the conviction appealed is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Castillo appeals from his conviction for burglary. We affirm his conviction because we find the claimed error to be harmless.

At trial, Castillo’s defense depended primarily on his credibility. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Castillo if he had any prior felony convictions. See § 90.610, Fla.Stat. (1983). Castillo responded affirmatively. Castillo had only one pri- or felony conviction but the prosecutor never elicited this fact on cross-examination. Instead, he left the jury with, as Castillo contends, a false impression that Castillo had previously been convicted of numerous [1067]*1067crimes. On redirect examination, defense counsel attempted to dispel this false impression by asking Castillo how many prior convictions he had. Defense counsel’s effort was thwarted however when the court sustained the prosecutor’s objection to the question.

It is well established that a party may reexamine a witness on any matter raised during cross-examination. See Noeling v. State, 40 So.2d 120 (Fla.1949). On redirect examination a witness may provide testimony “which tends to qualify, limit or explain testimony elicited on cross-examination.” Hinton v. State, 347 So.2d 1079, 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 981 (Fla.1977). Since the prosecutor challenged Castillo’s credibility by raising his prior conviction, the trial judge should have permitted Castillo to explain and limit the impact of the cross-examination by clarifying on redirect examination that he had only a single prior conviction.¹

Although we recognize the trial court’s error, we affirm the conviction because the error did not adversely affect Castillo’s substantial rights. See § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1985); Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648, 653 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 369, 70 L.Ed.2d 195 (1981). After carefully considering all the relevant circumstances, including the weight and quality of the evidence, see Palmes, and the fact that Castillo’s counsel indirectly informed the jury during closing argument that Castillo had only one prior conviction, we are convinced that the error did not affect the result below. See Brantley v. State, 279 So.2d 290 (Fla.1973); Warren v. State, 270 So.2d 8 (Fla.1972).

Whether considered on its own or in conjunction with the first point on appeal, Castillo’s final point on appeal is without merit. See Wilkins v. State, 383 So.2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Accordingly, the judgment on the conviction appealed is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 So. 2d 1066, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1494, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castillo-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack