Leon v. State
68 So. 3d 351
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Foster Rayfield Leon was convicted in a direct criminal appeal of attempted second-degree murder and kidnapping, receiving consecutive life sentences.
- The trial court admitted certain state-witness testimony that Leon had sought to exclude via three pretrial motions in limine which the court denied.
- The appellate standard applied was abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, with de novo review for incorrect interpretations of evidence law.
- Evidence included flight to New Orleans after the crimes, a jailhouse statement to a cellmate, and a bartender’s testimony concerning (2:00 a.m.) phone calls and related conduct.
- The State sought to prove consciousness of guilt by flight, and the defense challenged relevance and potential prejudice, among other objections.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s rulings as to admissibility, except for a book on taxidermy found in jail, which was deemed harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flight evidence admissibility nexus | Leon argues flight evidence is irrelevant to charged crimes. | State contends flight shows consciousness of guilt with nexus to crimes. | Admissible; nexus found, no abuse of discretion. |
| Jailhouse statements by Leon to Ahlf | Statements are irrelevant or prejudicial. | Statements are relevant to connection to crimes. | Admissible; proper relevance balancing under 90.403. |
| Taxidermy book admission error | Book contents show bias or prejudice. | Book has probative value as to Leon's mindset. | Admissible evidence error found, but harmless beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Kaye's testimony about call after 2:00 a.m. | Testimony is irrelevant or speculative. | Testimony establishes nexus between flight and crimes. | Admissible; weight to be given by jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twilegar v. State, 42 So.3d 177 (Fla. 2010) (flight evidence requires nexus to charged crimes; caveats govern probative value)
- Pantoja v. State, 59 So.3d 1092 (Fla.2011) (abuse of discretion with de novo review for evidentiary rulings)
- McCray v. State, 919 So.2d 647 (Fla.1st DCA 2006) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986) (harmless error standard)
- Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 988 (Fla.1997) (relevance and flight evidence principles)
- Bundy v. State, 471 So.2d 9 (Fla.1985) (caveats on assessing probative value of flight evidence)
- Straight v. State, 397 So.2d 903 (Fla.1981) (flight evidence as consciousness-of-guilt indicator)
- Merritt v. State, 523 So.2d 573 (Fla.1988) (causal link between flight and crime necessary for admissibility)