Petruschke v. State
125 So. 3d 274
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Petruschke appeals two convictions for lewd and lascivious molestation of a 3-year-old boy, C.V.
- Appellant was a friend of C.V.’s family and often at their home, sometimes sitting with C.V. in his room with the door open
- The night of the alleged incident, Petruschke stayed at the home; later C.V.’s father found him near the foot of the bed
- C.V. later disclosed to his mother and father that Petruschke touched him in his private areas; the family alerted authorities
- Evidence at trial included testimony from C.V. and parents about post-incident behavior (bed-wetting, terror, counseling) and a detective interview of C.V.
- Opinion reverses for new trial due to improper prosecutorial remarks; remands for retrial; discusses evidentiary issues likely to arise on retrial
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improper prosecutorial closing remarks | Petruschke argues remarks deprived fair trial | State contends remarks were permissible within closing | Reversed for new trial due to improper comments |
| Three-year-old’s capacity to fabricate allegations | Petruschke contends no evidence supports claim child cannot fabricate | State argues closing inference allowed | Improper; not a reasonable inference; error requiring reversal |
| Admission of C.V.’s post-abuse behavior evidence | Evidence irrelevant or prejudicial; unnecessary expert proof | Evidence probative of corroboration; not substantially prejudicial | Admission not abused; probative value outweighed prejudice under circumstances |
| Cross-examination regarding father’s cocaine use | Remanded instruction allowing defense to inquire about father’s cocaine use on night of incident |
Key Cases Cited
- Fenster v. State, 944 So.2d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (prosecutor cannot rely on evidence not in record)
- Spoor v. State, 975 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (closing argument must be grounded in record evidence)
- Anderson v. State, 863 So.2d 169 (Fla.2003) ( standards for improper prosecutorial comments)
- Chambers v. State, 924 So.2d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (prohibits inflammatory character attacks)
- Hudson v. State, 820 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (pedophile reference harmful; profile argument)
- Edwards v. State, 548 So.2d 656 (Fla.1989) (impeachment drug-use evidence timing rules)
- Elysee v. State, 920 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (behavioral evidence can corroborate abuse without expert proof)
- Johnson v. State, 40 So.3d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (suicide evidence overly prejudicial when minimal probative value)
- Aho v. State, 393 So.2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (suicide evidence prejudicial vs probative)
- Hadden v. State, 690 So.2d 573 (Fla.1997) (CSAAS expert testimony not required; pure opinion admissible in proper context)
- Frances v. State, 970 So.2d 806 (Fla.2007) (pure opinion testimony admissible when based on expert’s training/experience)