Moncus v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14062
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Moncus was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Florida
- The State sought to introduce post-arrest conduct evidence and challenge his credibility after eliciting exculpatory statements on cross-examination
- The State planned to use seven certified prior judgments (six felonies, one dishonesty) to impeach Moncus
- Defense objected to introducing certified judgments without foundation and to proving identity of the defendant to the prior judgments
- The trial court admitted the certified copies without additional authentication or identity proof, and the State argued it could rely on name identity for impeachment
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the challenged impeachment evidence and identification questions were correct, and clarified the evidentiary burden depends on purpose of admitting priors
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of post-arrest conduct for impeachment | Moncus relies on impeachment by prior convictions | State may impeach credibility after elicit of exculpatory statements | Affirmed (impeachment allowed) |
| Competence of witness to testify | Competence not seriously at issue on appeal | Challenge to witness reliability | Affirmed (competence not reversed) |
| Authentication of certified copies of prior judgments | Need foundation/predicate for certified copies | Certified copies self-authenticate; no extra authentication needed | Affirmed (no further authentication required) |
| Identity of person named in prior judgments | State must prove same person as Moncus | Identity is implied by name on judgments | Affirmed (name identity shown by similarities; burden on State) |
| Burden of proof for admissibility of prior convictions (impeachment vs. element/enhancement) | Lesser standard may apply where not elements of offense | Standard depends on purpose; may require preponderance | Affirmed (burden depends on purpose of admission) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. State, 857 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (impeachment with prior felony/dishonesty convictions permissible)
- Lyons v. State, 823 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (state bears burden to prove disputed prior conviction at all times)
- Brown v. State, 695 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (state must prove prior convictions when challenged at sentencing)
- Mason v. State, 853 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (name identity alone may be insufficient to prove a prior conviction)
- Miller v. State, 573 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (affirmative evidence required to establish identity)
- Gravatt v. United States, 260 F.2d 498 (10th Cir.1958) (due process and element proof context for identity)
- Moore v. State, 944 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (sentencing reliance on certified records; no: identity not always required)
- Slade v. State, 898 So.2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (impeachment use of priors; foundation considerations)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (burden of proof considerations when not an element)
- Roberts v. State, 559 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (proof standards for non-elemental prior convictions)
- Romani v. State, 542 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1989) (preliminary questions of admissibility; burden on offering party)
- Singh v. Holder, 379 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2010) (name identity evidence in immigration context)