DomKen
Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raiikun
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raiikun
quote:
ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
Florida can say that all they want, the US Supreme Court explicitly says that the probative value has to outweigh the prejudicial impact.
Which is part of the reason for the rules of evidence, to decide what is probative vs. Prejudicial.
And Florida has decided that the defendant need not know of the victim's reputation for violence for it to be admissible, as it does not pertain to the defendant's fear of the victim, but the possibility that the victim was the aggressor.
And just to add a source for that, in Dwyer vs. State, the appellate court wrote:
Generally, evidence of a victim's character is inadmissible, but a defendant who alleges self-defense can show, through the testimony of another witness, that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence, thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor. Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.6 (1999 ed.); Graham, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 404.1 (1987).
A defendant's prior knowledge of the victim's reputation for violence is irrelevant, because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim, rather than the defendant's state of mind. Ehrhardt. Accordingly, evidence of one of the victim's reputation for violence was not prohibited by Dwyer's lack of prior knowledge of that victim's character traits.
And Smith vs. State:
Florida permits a defendant in a criminal case to introduce evidence of the violent reputation or character of a victim providing there is a showing of self defense on the part of the defendant. Hodge v. State, 315 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). One legitimate basis for the admission of such evidence is for the purpose of showing that the victim was the first aggressor. Fine v. State, 70 Fla. 412, 70 So. 379 (1915). When a defendant offers evidence for this purpose, it is unnecessary for him to show that he had prior knowledge of the victim's propensities. Banks v. State, 351 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Pino v. Koelber, 389 So. 2d 1191, 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1980)
So the phone is inadmissible. The only way the defense can bring in evidence that Martin has a history of violence is to produce a witness that can be cross examined. Remember the later appellate ruling modifies the earlier.
|
RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread