Escalona v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Escalona v. State

22 Fla. Supp. 2d 158

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 1987

DocketCase No. 86 214 AC (County Court Case No. 80416, 7MW)

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Fla. Supp. 2d 158 (Escalona 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

Escalona v. State, 22 Fla. Supp. 2d 158 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

STEVEN D. ROBINSON, Judge.

In this non-jury trial, prior to the Judge’s decision that the appellant [159]*159was guilty of careless driving and willfully fleeing a police officer, the state introduced into evidence, evidence of defendant’s prior driving record, clearly inadmissible under Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959(. Such action on the part of a prosecutor is grounds for a new triál. Robinson v. State, 487 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 1986). Knight v. State, 316 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

The State’s proffer of evidence under the particular circumstances of this case generated fundamental error. Sherman v. State, 255 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1971). The defendant was not represented, as are most defendants in traffic court. The introduction of the prejudicial evidence was done so smoothly that even if an objection had been raised, irreversible damage would have already been done. Wilson v. State, 294 So.2d 327 (Fla. 1974).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

STEVEN D. ROBINSON, Judge.

In this non-jury trial, prior to the Judge’s decision that the appellant [159]*159was guilty of careless driving and willfully fleeing a police officer, the state introduced into evidence, evidence of defendant’s prior driving record, clearly inadmissible under Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959(. Such action on the part of a prosecutor is grounds for a new triál. Robinson v. State, 487 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 1986). Knight v. State, 316 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

The State’s proffer of evidence under the particular circumstances of this case generated fundamental error. Sherman v. State, 255 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1971). The defendant was not represented, as are most defendants in traffic court. The introduction of the prejudicial evidence was done so smoothly that even if an objection had been raised, irreversible damage would have already been done. Wilson v. State, 294 So.2d 327 (Fla. 1974).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Fla. Supp. 2d 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escalona-v-state-flacirct-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack