Lockett v. StateLockett v. State
During trial, appellant moved for mistrial three times, on the ground the testimony of three different officers that her home was a haven for drug sales — a “rock” house — or that her back bedroom was used for drug sales constituted improper impeachment of character, and was extremely prejudicial. These motions were denied, but the court instructed the jury to disregard the subject testimony. We conclude the statements constituted harmful error; therefore we reverse and remand for new trial. See Beneby v. State, 354 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 1978).
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.