County Criminal Court: CRIMINAL LAW Ė Search and Seizure Ė Stop - Stop was proper because the BOLO was not vague and the call to the police was from a citizen informant. Even if police did have to corroborate information, the record showed sufficient corroborating evidence to justify the stop. Ė Judgment and sentence affirmed.Mills v. State, No. CRC 03-84 APANO (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. Jan 5, 2005).

 

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXHT JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY

 

 

 

BRIAN KEITH MILLS

 

††††††††††† Appellant,

 

v.                                                                                                                                           Appeal No. CRC 02-211837 CFANO

UCN522002CF011837XXXXNO

STATE OF FLORIDA

 

††††††††††† Appellee.

___________________________/

 

 

Opinion filed ___________________.

 

Appeal from a judgment and sentence

entered by the Pinellas County Court

Senior County Judge Radford Smith

 

Joy Goodyear, Esq.

Assistant Public Defender

 

Tauna Bogle, Esq.

Assistant State Attorney

 

ORDER AND OPINION

 

††††††††††† THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendantís appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the Pinellas County Court following a jury trial. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court reverses the judgment and sentence.

††††††††††† A jury convicted the defendant of battery. Although there was an independent witness to the battery incident, the witness admitted he did not see the entire incident. The evidence was in conflict, much of the trial involved a credibility determination between the alleged victim, who was the defendantís ex-wife, and the defendant. The alleged victim had, according to the defendant, previously committed perjury in an unrelated case; and the defendant wanted to introduce that evidence in his battery trial. The State, however, moved to exclude the evidence, and the trial court granted the motion. The defendant was ultimately convicted of the battery charge. He is appealing the trial courtís decision to grant the Stateís motion to exclude the evidence of the alleged victimís perjury.

This Court concludes that based upon Cliburn v. State, 710 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the exclusion of that evidence was in error. In Cliburn, the court ruled that in a burglary case involving the defendantís former girlfriendís apartment, it was error for the trial court to have excluded evidence that the defendantís former girlfriend had previously filed a false kidnapping charge against another former boyfriend. The court reasoned that the credibility of a victim who is a key witness against the defendant is a crucial issue. It held that in such a case it is error to refuse to allow defense counsel to impeach the Stateís key witness by showing she made a false statement to police on a previous occasion. Similarly, in the case at bar it was error for the trial court to have excluded evidence of the previous claimed perjury when it was to be used to impeach the credibility of the Stateís key witness. The error was not harmless. Therefore, a new trial is warranted. ††† In light of this Courtís decision, the defendantís other issue is moot.

††††††††††† IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence are reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

††††††††††† DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this _____ day of November, 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ______________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† W. Douglas Baird

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Circuit Judge

 

 

 

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Nancy Moate Ley

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Circuit Judge

 

 

 

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† John A. Schaefer

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Circuit Judge

 

cc:†† State Attorney

 

††††††† Public Defender

 

††††††† Senior Judge R. Smith