Case Name: Truman P. MORRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-06-30
Citations: 335 So. 2d 836
Docket Number: No. W-234
Parties: Truman P. MORRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SMITH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 335
Pages: 836–840

Head Matter:
Truman P. MORRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. W-234.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 30, 1976.
C. P. Maddox, of Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Sulik & Nichols, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant Morrell was informed against and tried for the crime of rape. The jury returned a verdict of the lesser included offense of assault to commit rape; hence this appeal.
The major point asserted by Morrell is that the trial court erred in not permitting cross examination of the prosecutrix as to her addiction to narcotics and continuing methadone treatment.
The facts primarily reveal a "one on one" situation. The prosecuting witness testified that on the afternoon of her encounter with Morrell, she was walking home from her doctor's office. At this time a late model Thunderbird automobile pulled alongside her, and the two male occupants offered her a ride. She did not know the two males, however, she accepted their offer. Instead of taking her home, Morrell (the driver of the car and who she later identified) drove to a remote area. There, pursuant to the threat of shooting her to death, Morrell proceeded to rape her. A pistol was found in Morrell's possession at the time of his arrest in the early evening. Without detailing the facts further, suffice it to say that substantial, competent evidence was adduced to uphold the jury's verdict.
On cross examination, Morrell's attorney sought to elicit from the victim the fact that she was addicted to narcotics and, at that time, was taking methadone. Objection to this line of inquiry was sustained. In the jury's absence, Morrell's attorney examined the victim in developing a proffer of her testimony. She testified that she first became addicted to narcotics at age 18 (she was 21 years old at the time of trial), and that a week and a half prior to trial she had been confined in the Duval County Jail for possession of heroin. In answer to the question, "Are you under the influence of narcotics at the present time and or methadone?", the witness answered, "Well, I'm on methadone now."
Morrell's defense was predicated upon his testimony that the victim was hitchhiking down Kings Road, and when he slowed up she ran over to his car and acted like she knew his companion. Morrell further related that after she got into the car, she pulled out some marijuana and began talking about something stronger. The gist of Morrell's version was they had sexual intercourse in exchange for Morrell offering her some cocaine; although Morrell did not intend to uphold his end of the bargain.
Two main functions of cross examination are: 1) to shed light on the credibility of the direct testimony, and 2) to bring out additional facts related to those elicited on direct examination. As to the first function, the test' of relevancy is whether it will, to a useful extent, aid the court or the jury in appraising the credibility of the witness and assessing the probative value of the direct testimony. More than half a century ago, the Supreme Court stated in Pittman v. State:
"It is settled in this court that, for the purpose of discrediting a witness, a wide range of cross-examination is permitted as a matter of right in regard to his motives, interest, or animus as connected with the cause or the parties thereto, upon which matters he may he contradicted by other evidence . . . ." (Emphasis supplied)
The credibility of the prosecutrix being essential to the issue involved cannot be disputed. Although Morrell did not conclusively proffer proof that the prosecutrix was under the influence of drugs when the event occurred, or when she was on the stand to the extent that her mental faculties were impaired, it is evident that her drug addiction was a subject that was relevant to the facts charged. Thus, for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the one witness's testimony upon which the conviction had to be founded, the trial judge committed reversible error in precluding cross examination as to the prose-cutrix's drug addiction and treatment.
REVERSED.
SMITH, J., concurs.
CREWS, JOHN J., Associate Judge, dissents.
. McCormick on Evidence (2nd ed. 1972) at 57.
. Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94, 41 So. 385 (1906).