Opinion ID: 1882336
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: State's Elicitation of Improper Testimony on Sexual Assault

Text: In issue six, Rose argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence suggesting the decedent had been the victim of a sexual assault. Rose states that clearly there was no such evidence and the related testimony should not have been allowed. As earlier mentioned, Dr. Fatteh was the State's main witness in establishing the cause and manner of death. At one point, he was asked by the State about oral, vaginal, and rectal swabs taken from the victim. Defense counsel immediately objected and a sidebar was had. Defense counsel was concerned that the State was attempting to present some evidence of sexual contact to the extent that Dr. Fatteh would testify that though he could not find any evidence of sexual abuse, he could not exclude the possibility. The State then submitted that in a conversation with a detective at the jail, Rose worried: This is so bad. What will everybody think about me because she was raped and everything. The State suggested that though the admissibility of the statement was doubtful, it was relevant as a proper predicate for HAC. However, the trial court disagreed with the State and ruled that the statement along with any other sexual abuse reference would not be allowed unless the State had a witness that would (1) establish that there was sexual contact and (2) such contact occurred prior to the death. At issue on appeal is whether the State violated the judge's rulings through subsequent inquiries made by the State of Detective Charles Tipton and Detective Edward King: [State]: I would like to show you what is in evidence as State's Exhibit 6 and State's Exhibit 7, and ask you if these appear familiar to you? [Det. Tipton]: This is the sweater and the slacks that I took pictures of. [State]: Okay, sir. Now, when you took custody of the slacks, were they in simply the same situation, condition they are now? [Det. Tipton]: Yes. [State]: Including the zipper? [Det. Tipton]: Right (Record on Appeal, Vol. VIII, at 778). Detective King, who participated in the questioning of Rose for the murder and who was also the arresting and investigating officer in Rose's burglary case in 1969, took the stand for the State. The relevant part of his testimony was as follows: [State]: ... Do you know if he had been charged with any other burglaries after the one that you arrested him for? [Det. King]: My own personal knowledge? [State]: Yes. [Det. King]: No. [State]: Or do you know from any other source? [Det. King]: Yes. I heard from other sources that he was arrested in Wilton Manors. [State]: Do you know for what? [Det. King]: Supposedly broke into a didn't break into the house. He knew a white female and it was the wife of a friend of his, supposedly somebody that he knew, and he went there and apparently took advantage of her and either tried to rape her or [Defense counsel]: Objection as to the words took advantage of her. [Court]: That's sustained. [Defense counsel]: I would move to strike. [Court]: The jury will disregard that phrase. [State]: But you don't have personal knowledge of that? [Det. King]: I don't have much information. I just heard that he was involved in a possible rape there. [Defense counsel]: Objection to possible rape, Judge. [Court]: Next question. (Record on Appeal, Vol. IX, at 932-33). As shown above, counsel objected only to Detective King's examination, and therefore his claim relating to Detective Tipton's testimony was not preserved. See J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998) (holding that except where a fundamental error exists, to raise an error on appeal, a contemporaneous objection is required at the trial level when the alleged error occurred). Similarly, the objections made during King's testimony appear inadequate to preserve the issue for appeal. In any case, after examining the challenged testimony, we find any error to be harmless at most. [6]