IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXHT JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
BRIAN KEITH MILLS
Appellant,
v. Appeal No. CRC 02-211837 CFANO
UCN522002CF011837XXXXNO
STATE OF
Appellee.
___________________________/
Opinion filed ___________________.
Appeal from a judgment and sentence
entered by the Pinellas County Court
Joy Goodyear, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
Tauna Bogle, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant’s 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 defendant’s 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 court’s decision to grant the State’s motion to exclude the evidence of the alleged victim’s 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 defendant’s former girlfriend’s apartment, it was error for the trial court to have excluded evidence that the defendant’s 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 State’s 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 State’s key witness. The error was not harmless. Therefore, a new trial is warranted. In light of this Court’s decision, the defendant’s 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
______________________
W. Douglas Baird
Circuit Judge
________________________
Nancy Moate Ley
Circuit Judge
________________________
John A. Schaefer
Circuit Judge
cc: State Attorney
Public Defender
Senior Judge R. Smith