Foster v. State
182 So. 3d 3
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- At ~2:00 a.m. an officer observed Foster acting suspiciously near a parked vehicle, contacted him, and obtained consent to search his person.
- Officer recovered a wallet containing another person’s Social Security card; that person had reported the card stolen. Foster told the officer he found the wallet.
- On cross-examination, the officer testified Foster said he found the wallet in a garbage can and planned to turn it in as found property.
- The State moved to admit certified copies of eleven of Foster’s prior convictions for impeachment under section 90.806(1) after the defense elicited the officer’s testimony about Foster’s exculpatory statements.
- The trial court admitted the convictions; Foster was convicted of burglary of a conveyance, petit theft, and loitering/prowling. Foster appealed arguing the court erred in admitting his prior convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Foster) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense cross-examination of the officer opened the door to impeachment with Foster’s prior convictions | Defense opened the door by eliciting exculpatory statements through the officer, so prior convictions became admissible to attack credibility | The State first elicited Foster’s statement on direct; defense was entitled to elicit the remainder of the conversation without placing Foster’s credibility in issue | Reversed: defense did not open the door; State erred in admitting prior convictions |
| Whether admission of prior convictions was harmless error | Not harmless; but argued limited instruction and non-disclosure of conviction nature minimized prejudice | Admission of prior convictions was prejudicial where case turned on credibility of Foster’s explanation for possession | Error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal and new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Lott v. State, 695 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1997) (self-serving out-of-court statements are generally inadmissible hearsay)
- Guerrero v. State, 532 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (when state elicits part of a conversation, defendant may cross-examine about other relevant statements)
- Bozeman v. State, 698 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ("opening the door" doctrine promotes fairness and truth-seeking by permitting cross-examination to reveal the whole conversation)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error standard: State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that error did not contribute to conviction)