Tampa Bay Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
Many episodes of scripted television courtroom feature an “a-ha!” moment where the outcome becomes apparent: a witness breaks down on the stand and conclusively implicates themselves, someone other than the accused confesses to police or prosecutors, or a decisive piece of evidence is discovered at the last second. In the real world, few cases have a “smoking gun.” Most criminal trials in Florida predominantly feature circumstantial evidence and come down to which side’s presentation proves more persuasive to the jury. Given that reality, having a skilled Tampa Bay criminal defense lawyer on your side if you are facing charges is a must. The right legal team not only can help you put forward all the evidence that strengthens your case but also assist you in keeping out inadmissible evidence the prosecution seeks to place before the jury.
One type of circumstantial evidence that prosecutors use to bolster their cases is proof of the accused’s criminal past. In general, the law does not permit the consideration of the accused’s prior bad acts to decide his/her guilt of the current crime, but the law also carves out exceptions. One is when the defense “opens the door.” This means that the defense proactively presented evidence related to character traits first. If the defense opens the door, then the law allows the state to bring in evidence of prior bad acts that relate to that same trait.
Additionally, the state can use proof of past criminal activities if those prior bad acts tend to prove motive, intent, knowledge, or pattern, and not criminal propensity or poor character. This is called the “Williams rule,” stemming from the 1959 Florida Supreme Court ruling in Williams v. State.
Hearsay Evidence as a Preface to Admitting Prior Bad Acts
A third exception occurs when a party uses admissible hearsay evidence. Section 90.806(1) of the Florida Statutes says that once “a hearsay statement has been admitted in evidence, credibility of the declarant may be attacked and, if attacked, may be supported by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness.”
That statute was at the center of a recent Second District Court of Appeal case where the accused successfully secured a new trial. The accused was a Myakka City man who struck a bar’s security worker in the head several times after the employee threw the man’s father-in-law out of the establishment.
The defense argued that the accused acted in defense of his father-in-law, specifically contending that the bouncer was unduly aggressive and seemed on the verge of violence and that the father-in-law was physically fragile and “particularly vulnerable to dire injury.” As part of the defense presentation, the father-in-law testified about a verbal exchange between the worker and the accused where the accused indicated that he and his father-in-law would leave the premises as soon as their wives returned from the bathroom.
The state used that testimony as the preface for bringing in the accused’s previous criminal record under Section 90.806(1). The jury convicted the man of felony battery. The appeals court, however, reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial because the evidence of his criminal past was inadmissible.
What Constitutes Hearsay
Section 90.806(1) permits the admission of proof of prior bad acts only if a hearsay statement has been admitted into evidence… and the father-in-law’s testimony did not constitute hearsay. To be hearsay under the rules of evidence, a statement must be offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” The father-in-law testified that his son-in-law told the bouncer “It’s my father-in-law… We’re just going to get the girls. They’re in the bathroom. Once they come out, we’re going to leave.” The defense did not present this testimony to prove that the ejected man was the accused’s father-in-law, that the men had wives who were inside the bar’s bathroom, or that the men intended to leave the property as soon as the wives exited the bathroom and could depart with them. The defense presented that testimony to support its argument that the accused was trying to de-escalate a heated interaction between the bouncer and his father-in-law.
In that context, the father-in-law’s statement was not hearsay and, because it was not hearsay, the state was not entitled to use Section 90.806(1) to admit the accused’s criminal history.
As this blog has discussed many times, the difference between a conviction and an acquittal may be your ability to keep out inadmissible evidence that harms your defense case. Inadmissible evidence does not simply get excluded automatically; it requires a properly timed and well-articulated objection (and sometimes a strong appeal, as well.) To ensure that the trial you receive is as fair as possible and the defense you receive is as strong as possible, look to the diligent and knowledgeable Tampa Bay criminal defense attorneys at Blake & Dorsten P.A. Our experienced team includes former state prosecutors who know the criminal justice system in this area well, and know how to give you the best chance of a successful outcome. To find out more, call us today at (727) 286-6141 to schedule your free initial consultation.