Varnadore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Varnadore v. State

626 So. 2d 1386, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10679, 1993 WL 424202

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 22, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1714

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 626 So. 2d 1386 (Varnadore 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

Varnadore v. State, 626 So. 2d 1386, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10679, 1993 WL 424202 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

In this case the issue is whether the trial court’s refusal to give the defendant’s requested special limiting instruction at the time the state elicited admissions of prior felony convictions constituted harmful error.

At the end of the state’s cross-examination, the defendant admitted three prior felony convictions. Defense counsel thereupon requested an immediate instruction to the jury to the effect that evidence of prior convictions was to be considered only in relation to the believability of the defendant as a witness and was not to be considered as evidence of guilt of the crime for which he was on trial. Contrary to the explicit mandate of section 90.107, Florida Statutes (1991),¹ the trial court declined to give the requested instruction. Instead, the trial court gave the standard jury instructions at the close of all of the evidence, and defense counsel told the jury during closing argument that the sole basis for the jury’s consideration of the three prior felonies was the weight to be given to the defendant’s testimony.

The issue on appeal is simply whether this error by the trial judge was a harmful one² or a harmless one.³ On balance, we affirm the appellant’s robbery conviction despite some reservations as to the proper enforceability of section 90.107.

DAUKSCH, J., concurs. GRIFFIN, J., concurs in result only, without opinion.

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

COBB, Judge.

In this case the issue is whether the trial court’s refusal to give the defendant’s requested special limiting instruction at the time the state elicited admissions of prior felony convictions constituted harmful error.

At the end of the state’s cross-examination, the defendant admitted three prior felony convictions. Defense counsel thereupon requested an immediate instruction to the jury to the effect that evidence of prior convictions was to be considered only in relation to the believability of the defendant as a witness and was not to be considered as evidence of guilt of the crime for which he was on trial. Contrary to the explicit mandate of section 90.107, Florida Statutes (1991),¹ the trial court declined to give the requested instruction. Instead, the trial court gave the standard jury instructions at the close of all of the evidence, and defense counsel told the jury during closing argument that the sole basis for the jury’s consideration of the three prior felonies was the weight to be given to the defendant’s testimony.

The issue on appeal is simply whether this error by the trial judge was a harmful one² or a harmless one.³ On balance, we affirm the appellant’s robbery conviction despite some reservations as to the proper enforceability of section 90.107.

DAUKSCH, J., concurs. GRIFFIN, J., concurs in result only, without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

626 So. 2d 1386, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10679, 1993 WL 424202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varnadore-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack