Opinion ID: 1772363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: issue 6. investigator hand's testimony

Text: Lawrence asserts in his supplemental briefing that the trial court committed reversible error by overruling Lawrence's objection to Investigator Hand giving his opinion regarding Lawrence's alter ego and by denying Lawrence's motion for a mistrial. This Court reviews evidentiary rulings and denials of motions for mistrial under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000); Cole v. State, 701 So.2d 845, 853 (Fla.1997). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case. Lawrence's counsel extensively argued to the trial court that Hand should be able to give his opinion as to whether Lawrence was a follower or a leader. Lawrence's counsel contended that the rules of evidence are relaxed; and this opinion is one that he is eminently ... qualified to make as a detective. The trial judge eventually ruled that he would [err] on the side of caution and allow Lawrence's counsel to ask Hand for his opinion. Defense counsel further assured the trial court that Hand was qualified to give this type of opinion. When Hand testified, Lawrence's counsel specifically asked Hand to state his opinion as to who was the dominant person between Lawrence and Rodgers. Hand testified that Lawrence could be considered a follower in a public setting. During the State's cross-examination, Hand testified that Lawrence was more open and outgoing when in the presence of Rodgers. On redirect examination, Lawrence's counsel asked Hand if he recalled making a prior statement regarding Hand's belief that Lawrence had an alter ego of which Rodgers took advantage. Hand replied: I recall that in detail but. Lawrence's counsel then interrupted Hand, and the State objected to Lawrence's counsel not allowing Hand to finish his statement. The trial court allowed Lawrence's counsel to continue and stated that the State could ask Hand to explain further on recross-examination. On recross-examination, the State asked Hand to explain what he was going to say when he was previously interrupted. Lawrence's counsel objected, stating that Hand was not qualified to answer the question. The trial court overruled the objection, and Hand testified that he believed that when Lawrence was with Rodgers, Lawrence becomes the person that he wanted to be, he always wanted to be and couldn't be in society. Based on that testimony, Lawrence's counsel made a motion for a mistrial, which was denied by the trial court. In view of the manner in which Hand's testimony was initially presented by Lawrence's counsel, we do not find error in the trial court's rulings regarding the recross-examination of Hand. In Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29 (Fla.2000), this Court stated: As an evidentiary principle, the concept of `opening the door' allows the admission of otherwise inadmissible testimony to `qualify, explain, or limit' testimony or evidence previously admitted. The concept of `opening the door' is `based on considerations of fairness and the truth-seeking function of a trial.' Id. at 42 (citations omitted). Without Hand's explanation on recross-examination, Hand's opinion would have been incomplete and misleading. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in allowing the recross-examination and denying Lawrence's motion for a mistrial. Cf. Wuornos v. State, 644 So.2d 1012, 1018 (Fla.1994) (Defense counsel opened the door and will not be heard to complain now.).