Elmer v. State
114 So. 3d 198
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Elmer was convicted by jury of three counts of capital sexual battery on CJ, a child under twelve.
- CJ is Elmer’s girlfriend’s daughter; the abuse began after Elmer moved in with Ann, with conflicting timing evidence.
- The central trial issue was whether the abuse began before CJ’s twelfth birthday (April 21, 1989).
- Elmer sought to impeach CJ with a 1995 police report containing prior inconsistent statements; the State moved to exclude as hearsay.
- The trial court prohibited use of the 1995 report for impeachment and barred Detective Lucas from testifying about it; the court later reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-examination limited on prior statements | Elmer contends the 1995 report should be used to impeach CJ. | State argues the statements are hearsay and should be barred. | Abuse of discretion; reversible error. |
| admissibility of Detective Lucas testimony | Elmer contends Detective Lucas may testify about the 1995 report to lay foundation for impeachment. | State argues Detective lacks independent recollection and testimony is inadmissible. | Abuse of discretion; reversible error. |
| Harmless error standard | Errors affected CJ’s credibility and the outcome given her central role. | State asserts error was harmless. | Not harmless; reversible. |
| Similar fact evidence framework | Similar fact evidence should be admissible to corroborate or rebut credibility. | State argues broad admissibility under the statute with balancing for prejudice. | Requires remand for proper analysis under clear-and-convincing standard. |
| Defense photographs admissibility | Photographs tend to prove timing of Elmer’s residence and related facts. | Photographs are relevant if probative and not unduly prejudicial. | Remand to reevaluate admissibility with proper relevance analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 808 (1974) (cross-examination as core tool to test witness credibility)
- Pearce v. State, 880 So.2d 561 (Fla.2004) (prior inconsistent statements impeach credibility not limited to writing)
- McBean v. State, 688 So.2d 383 (Fla.4th DCA 1997) (impeachment by prior statements admissible for credibility)
- Pugh v. State, 637 So.2d 313 (Fla.3d DCA 1994) (procedure for admitting extrinsic evidence of prior statements)
- Engle v. State, 438 So.2d 803 (Fla.1983) (test for admissibility of photographic evidence; relevance)
- Hutchens v. State, 730 So.2d 825 (Fla.2d DCA 1999) (similar fact evidence to corroborate victim’s testimony)
- McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248 (Fla.2006) (framework for evaluating admissibility of similar fact evidence)