Joyce Angelo v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Joyce Angelo v. State of Florida

204 So. 3d 594, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17722

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 2016

Docket1D15-3972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 So. 3d 594 (Joyce Angelo v. State of Florida) 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

Joyce Angelo v. State of Florida, 204 So. 3d 594, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17722 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, J.

Appellant challenges her conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. She argues the trial court erred in prohibiting her from testifying regarding prior specific acts of violence committed by the victim. The State concedes that the trial court erred. We agree. See Savage v. State, 99 So.3d 1001, 1002-03 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding that pursuant to section 90.404(l)(b), Florida Statutes, once the defendant presents evidence that the victim committed an overt act at or near the time of the incident that reasonably indicated the need for self-defense, the defendant may present evidence of prior specific acts of violence by the victim to prove the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension at the time of the incident).

The parties dispute whether the error was harmless. The State argues that it met its burden to show the error.was harmless because appellant was still able to present her theory of defense, and appellant’s version of the events was contradicted by the eyewitnesses. However, while there were two eyewitnesses who testified to the events around the time of the incident, neither witness testified that he or she saw how the conflict began or was watching when the victim was cut. Thus, the State cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. See Grace v. State, 832 So.2d 224, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (finding the error in excluding testimony of prior specific acts of violence of the victim was not harmless even though three eyewitnesses testified that the defendant hit the victim unprovoked, reasoning “the fact that [the defendant] did not have any corroborative testimony to support his defense supports [his] argument that the error contributed to the verdict”). As such, we REVERSE.

BILBREY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ, concur.

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

WOLF, J.

Appellant challenges her conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. She argues the trial court erred in prohibiting her from testifying regarding prior specific acts of violence committed by the victim. The State concedes that the trial court erred. We agree. See Savage v. State, 99 So.3d 1001, 1002-03 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding that pursuant to section 90.404(l)(b), Florida Statutes, once the defendant presents evidence that the victim committed an overt act at or near the time of the incident that reasonably indicated the need for self-defense, the defendant may present evidence of prior specific acts of violence by the victim to prove the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension at the time of the incident).

The parties dispute whether the error was harmless. The State argues that it met its burden to show the error.was harmless because appellant was still able to present her theory of defense, and appellant’s version of the events was contradicted by the eyewitnesses. However, while there were two eyewitnesses who testified to the events around the time of the incident, neither witness testified that he or she saw how the conflict began or was watching when the victim was cut. Thus, the State cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. See Grace v. State, 832 So.2d 224, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (finding the error in excluding testimony of prior specific acts of violence of the victim was not harmless even though three eyewitnesses testified that the defendant hit the victim unprovoked, reasoning “the fact that [the defendant] did not have any corroborative testimony to support his defense supports [his] argument that the error contributed to the verdict”). As such, we REVERSE.

BILBREY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 So. 3d 594, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joyce-angelo-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack