Hare v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hare v. State

617 So. 2d 821, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4996, 1993 WL 136601

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 3, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2224

StatusPublished

This text of 617 So. 2d 821 (Hare 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

Hare v. State, 617 So. 2d 821, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4996, 1993 WL 136601 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from his conviction of the offense of burglary and the ten-year habitual felony offender sentence imposed thereon, appellant contends the trial court erred in permitting the state to impeach a defense witness through inquiry into the general moral character of the witness by admission of evidence of prior bad acts. We agree the admission of this evidence was error. After an examination of the entire record, pursuant to the harmless error analysis set forth in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135, 1139 (Fla.1986), we cannot affirmatively state that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict. See also State v. Lee, 531 So.2d 133 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, appellant’s conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

JOANOS, C.J., and BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from his conviction of the offense of burglary and the ten-year habitual felony offender sentence imposed thereon, appellant contends the trial court erred in permitting the state to impeach a defense witness through inquiry into the general moral character of the witness by admission of evidence of prior bad acts. We agree the admission of this evidence was error. After an examination of the entire record, pursuant to the harmless error analysis set forth in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135, 1139 (Fla.1986), we cannot affirmatively state that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict. See also State v. Lee, 531 So.2d 133 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, appellant’s conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

JOANOS, C.J., and BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 So. 2d 821, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4996, 1993 WL 136601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hare-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack