Charles BOYER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Teresa J. Sopp, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; and Robert L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahasseе, for Appellee.
BROWNING, J.
Appellant appeals his conviction for secоnd-degree murder on two grounds: (1) *419 that the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of expеrt witness Dr. Richard Ofshe, and (2) by denying Appellant's request for a juror interview. We affirm the secоnd ground without discussion. On the first ground, Appellant argues the trial court reversibly erred by excluding the expert testimony of Dr. Ofshe, an expert on interrogation techniques and false сonfession phenomena, because Dr. Ofshe's testimony went to the heart of Appellant's defense that his confession is false. The State argues the trial court is in the bеst position to evaluate the admissibility and relevancy of this testimony, and propеrly excluded the testimony after reviewing the proffer. We agree with Appellant аnd reverse and remand for a new trial.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress his сonfession on grounds that it was given when he was mentally and physically debilitated from an еxtended bout of drinking and, thus, it was not freely, knowingly, and voluntarily made. The motion was denied. Appellant then sought to present the testimony of Dr. Ofshe regarding a phenomenon that causes innocent people to confess to a criminal offense; police techniques that secure false confessions under certain circumstanсes; and his explanation of the parameters within which one can evaluatе a confession to determine its veracity. The trial court found Dr. Ofshe met the requiremеnts of an expert witness under Frye v. United States,
"Expert testimony should be excluded when the facts testified to аre of such nature as not to require any special knowledge or experience in order for the jury to form its conclusions." Johnson v. State,
The facts in Hall are very similar to those here. In Hall, as in this case, thе defendant signed a written confession prepared by investigators for his signature. Defеnse counsel there attempted to introduce the testimony of Dr. Ofshe, the same witness here. The trial court excluded the testimony, in part, based on its finding that it would add nothing to what the jury would know from common experience. See id. at 1341-1345. The Seventh Circuit reversed on reasoning with which we agree and adopt herein.
The Hall court held that once the court decided the confession was voluntary, "the jury was entitled `to hear relevant evidеnce on the issue of voluntariness and [the trial judge was to] instruct the jury to *420 give such weight to the confession as the jury feels it deserves under all the circumstances.'" Id. at 1344, quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3501. Had Dr. Ofshe's testimony been admitted, it "would have let the jury know that a phenomenon known as false cоnfessions exists, how to recognize it, and how to decide whether it fit the facts of the case being tried." Id. at 1345. It is for the jury to determine the weight to give to Dr. Ofshe's testimony, and to decide whether they believed his theory or "the more commonplace explanation that the confession was true." Id., citing 18 U.S.C. § 3501.
Because in this case, as in Hall, Dr. Ofshe's testimony "went to the heart" of Appellant's defense, its exclusion cannot be considered harmless beyond a reasonаble doubt. See State v. DiGuilio,
ERVIN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
NOTES
Notes
[1] At the time of Appellant's trial, Dr. Ofshe had been reсognized as an expert and had testified on the effects of police interrogation on approximately 134 occasions, and had conducted lectures and training sessions for the Florida Supreme Court and Florida Circuit Court judges.