Case Name: Daniel Rivero GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2008-02-13
Citations: 974 So. 2d 1154
Docket Number: No. 3D06-2487
Parties: Daniel Rivero GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before COPE, SHEPHERD, and SALTER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 974
Pages: 1154–1158

Head Matter:
Daniel Rivero GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D06-2487.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 13, 2008.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before COPE, SHEPHERD, and SALTER, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Garcia appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, a knife. We affirm.
The single issue presented here is whether the trial court reversibly erred in admitting, over objection, evidence of a prior threat made by the defendant eleven days before the aggravated battery.
Garcia's prior threat was made to his estranged wife. He showed her a knife and told her that he would use it on her if she was with another man. Eleven days later, she was with another man and Garcia used a knife on that man, the victim.
Before trial, Garcia moved for and obtained an order in limine precluding the State's introduction of evidence regarding the prior threat. Garcia argued that the prior threat involved a different person (the wife, as opposed to the ultimate victim) and that it was excludible under Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959).
At trial, Garcia testified in his own defense. In response to questions by his counsel, he testified that he still loved his wife and "[a]t the time of this incident, that was the reason for my being there, because I loved her." On cross examination, counsel for the State asked Garcia, "so on August 4, 2005 [the date of the stabbing], you were very much in love with your wife?" Garcia said again, "Exactly, that was the reason for my being there." The trial judge immediately conducted a sidebar and notified defense counsel that "the door was opened by [Garcia's] testimony," such that the State would be allowed to ask both Garcia and his estranged wife about the prior threat. Garcia's counsel duly objected. Garcia denied making the threat, but during rebuttal his estranged wife confirmed it. She testified that the week before the stabbing, Garcia "told me that I had to go back with him, that if I didn't he was going to kill me, and he pulled out a blade, a knife he had."
We review issues relating to the admissibility of evidence and the permissible scope of cross-examination for an abuse of discretion. Kulling v. State, 827 So.2d 311, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). In this case, Garcia invited cross-examination regarding his purported love for his wife. See § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2006); Brown v. State, 756 So.2d 230, 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (finding that the defendant opened the door to questions about prior crimes during direct examination testimony). We find no abuse of discretion in allowing the cross-examination and additional testimony regarding the prior threat.
Affirmed.