Martinez v. State
125 So. 3d 985
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence after a confrontation following an apparent seizure; jury acquitted on battery but convicted on resisting with violence.
- Defense called neurologist Dr. Cutler who testified appellant had a seizure and could be confused and combative after one.
- On cross-examination the state asked Dr. Cutler whether appellant had retained a civil attorney (Mr. McDonald of McClusky and McDonald) to sue the City of Pembroke Pines; defense objected for relevance and impeachment misuse.
- The trial court allowed the inquiry over objection; the state later asked similar questions of appellant’s wife and argued in closing that appellant was "gearing up for a civil lawsuit" to obtain money.
- Appellant did not object to the prosecutor’s closing remarks; on appeal he argued the questioning and remarks improperly suggested litigious motive and prejudiced his criminal trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was cross-examining Dr. Cutler about appellant hiring a civil lawyer admissible to show bias? | State: permitted to probe possible bias and witness knowledge. | Appellant: question was irrelevant to doctor’s credibility and aimed to prejudice jury by implying civil suit motive. | Reversed: cross-exam was irrelevant and improper. |
| Was cross-examining appellant’s wife about a civil suit proper? | State: probative of motive/credibility. | Appellant: irrelevant and speculative; prejudicial. | Improper; contributed to reversible error. |
| Were prosecutor’s closing statements about appellant "gearing up for a civil lawsuit" fundamental error? | State: reasonable inference from evidence; not objected to at trial. | Appellant: argument unfairly injected collateral, prejudicial matter. | Not fundamental error alone, but contributed to cumulative reversible error. |
| Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | State: some evidence of disorder; conviction still supported. | Appellant: cumulative prejudice from questions and argument undermines fairness. | Error not harmless; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stano v. State, 473 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 1985) (relevance requires evidence tend to prove a fact in issue)
- Salazar v. State, 991 So.2d 364 (Fla. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error standard and cumulative error analysis)
- Zabner v. Howard Johnson’s Inc. of Fla., 227 So.2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (impeaching via party’s litigiousness is improper)
- Melton v. State, 56 So.3d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (discussing longstanding right to retain counsel)
- Potashnick v. Port City Constr. Co., 609 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1980) (historical context on right to retain civil counsel)
- Thompson v. State, 88 So.3d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (standard for fundamental error review when no contemporaneous objection)
- Myers v. Siegel, 920 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (recognizing judicial protection of the right to counsel in civil proceedings)