Waldowski v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Waldowski v. State

708 So. 2d 1015, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3176, 1998 WL 144988

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 1, 1998

DocketNo. 97-0227

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 708 So. 2d 1015 (Waldowski 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

Waldowski v. State, 708 So. 2d 1015, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3176, 1998 WL 144988 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

FARMER, Judge.

We reverse a conviction and sentence for stalking and remand for a new trial upon a conclusion that the trial court erroneously admitted irrelevant evidence that we are unable to find harmless.

Defendant was charged with aggravated stalking for harassing the estranged mother of his children after an injunction against domestic violence had been issued. The state sought to adduce evidence of anonymous complaints of child abuse against her new boyfriend, made after defendant and the mother had separated. HRS investigated the complaints and found them unsubstantiated. There was no evidence that defendant made the anonymous complaints, and the jury was therefore invited to speculate that it was he who had done so. Moreover, these complaints had no logical relationship to “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” See § 90.404(2)(a) Fla. Stat. (1997).

It was also error to admit evidence of the defendant’s conversation with the mother’s sister-in-law about the new boyfriend. The comment in opening statement was not a sufficient predicate for the state to adduce this otherwise inadmissible evidence. Similarly the alleged conversion of the $900 cheek was irrelevant to the charges.

This case was essentially a swearing match between defendant and the victim. Defendant has convinced us that the admission of this evidence was not harmless error; these errors in the trial court “harmfully affected the judgment.” See § 924.051(l)(a) and (7), Fla. Stat. (1997) (defendant has burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in trial court; prejudicial error is one that harmfully affects judgment or sentence).

[1016]*1016REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

FARMER, Judge.

We reverse a conviction and sentence for stalking and remand for a new trial upon a conclusion that the trial court erroneously admitted irrelevant evidence that we are unable to find harmless.

Defendant was charged with aggravated stalking for harassing the estranged mother of his children after an injunction against domestic violence had been issued. The state sought to adduce evidence of anonymous complaints of child abuse against her new boyfriend, made after defendant and the mother had separated. HRS investigated the complaints and found them unsubstantiated. There was no evidence that defendant made the anonymous complaints, and the jury was therefore invited to speculate that it was he who had done so. Moreover, these complaints had no logical relationship to “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” See § 90.404(2)(a) Fla. Stat. (1997).

It was also error to admit evidence of the defendant’s conversation with the mother’s sister-in-law about the new boyfriend. The comment in opening statement was not a sufficient predicate for the state to adduce this otherwise inadmissible evidence. Similarly the alleged conversion of the $900 cheek was irrelevant to the charges.

This case was essentially a swearing match between defendant and the victim. Defendant has convinced us that the admission of this evidence was not harmless error; these errors in the trial court “harmfully affected the judgment.” See § 924.051(l)(a) and (7), Fla. Stat. (1997) (defendant has burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in trial court; prejudicial error is one that harmfully affects judgment or sentence).

[1016]*1016REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 So. 2d 1015, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3176, 1998 WL 144988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldowski-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack