Carlisle v. State
137 So. 3d 479
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Carlisle adopted the victim and her brother; in 2005 the victim alleged abuse by Carlisle and later recanted.
- In 2008 the victim reported new, multiple acts of abuse by Carlisle; police investigation followed.
- Two controlled calls were made by the victim to Carlisle, containing potentially incriminating responses.
- Carlisle was charged with one count of sexual battery on a child in a custodial role and one count of lewd/molestation for the earlier incident.
- A pretrial motion in limine blocked cross-examination about the 2005 recantation, relying on 90.610 and Washington v. State.
- At trial, the defense sought to admit the recantation and cross-examine about it; the trial court limited it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by excluding cross-examination about the recantation | Carlisle argues recantation is admissible under 90.608 and Williams rule. | State contends recantation is inadmissible and not probative. | Trial court reversal on cross-examination allowed; error not harmless. |
| Whether the recantation evidence was admissible under 90.608(2) to show bias | Recantation shows bias/motive against Carlisle and should be admitted. | Recantation against Carlisle is not admissible under 90.608(2). | Exclusion violated 90.608(2) as biased motive evidence. |
| Whether Confrontation Clause requires admission of recantation evidence | Cross-examining about recantation reveals motive/bias; necessary under confrontational rights. | Limited cross-examination does not violate confrontation because risk of prejudice. | Confrontation rights require considering relevant motive; error occurred. |
| Whether the recantation evidence was admissible as reverse Williams rule under 90.404(2)(a) | Recantation is relevant to motive/intent and admissible as reverse Williams rule. | Recantation should be excluded as improper propensity evidence. | Evidence admissible under 90.404(2)(a) for motive; probative value not substantially outweighed. |
| Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Victim credibility central; recantation could have changed outcome. | Controlled calls were highly incriminatory; error was harmless. | Error not harmless; reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pantoja v. State, 59 So.3d 1092 (Fla.2011) (cross-examination on prior false allegations; bias, confrontation, and Williams rule discussion)
- Washington v. State, 985 So.2d 51 (Fla.4th DCA 2008) (impeachment limits under 90.610)
- Daggers v. State, 536 So.2d 321 (Fla.2d DCA 1988) (Second District on cross-examining prior abuse allegations)
- McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248 (Fla.2006) (basis for 90.404(2) probative value vs. prejudice)
- Woods v. State, 92 So.3d 890 (Fla.4th DCA 2012) (credibility impact of victim's testimony)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986) (harmless error standard)
- Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959) (Williams rule origin)