Opinion ID: 1648336
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: cross-examination on detectives' interrogation tactics

Text: Keen's next claim of error is that the trial court improperly restricted his cross-examination of detectives Amabile and Scheff regarding prior discipline for allegedly improper interrogation techniques in other cases. We find no merit in this claim. At the outset, this claim appears to be an attempt to relitigate the issue in claim (9) regarding Keen's motion to suppress his statements made to police. The essence of Keen's argument is that the trial court erred in precluding him from cross-examining Officers Amabile and Scheff about being disciplined for improper interrogation techniques in other cases ... [because] [t]he police conduct in this case was an important issue below. Appellant's Initial Brief at 56. First, as noted in claim (9), this issue was fully litigated and determined in Keen's first direct appeal. Keen, 504 So.2d at 399-400. The police conduct in this case was closely examined and no improper activity was found. Therefore, the basic premise of Keen's argument has no factual basis. Second, as a general rule, an appellate court cannot speculate what any proffered testimony would have been in determining whether it was error not to allow it. Stokes v. State, 658 So.2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (quoting Williams v. State, 600 So.2d 524, 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)). Further, this Court has explained that reverse Williams -rule evidence requires the same showing of relevance as evidence offered by the prosecution. Kimbrough v. State, 700 So.2d 634, 637 (Fla.1997); see also Ehrhardt, supra, § 404.9 at 180-81. That is, section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statites (1995), applies without regard to whether the evidence is offered by the State or a criminal defendant. See id. at 180. The section provides: Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. (Emphasis added.) In this case, Keen proffered no facts sufficient to show relevance to a material fact in issue. Here, Keen's motion only stated that he wished to ask the detectives about discipline they received for improper interrogation techniques in another homicide case. In ruling on the motion, the trial judge wrote: As offered by the defendant in this motion, his request to cross-examine the officers based upon this collateral disciplinary matter is an attempt to introduce Reverse Williams Rule evidence. He is entitled to introduce such evidence subject to the same strict standards of relevancy as when it is offered by the state. Rivera v. State, 561 So.2d 536, 539 (Fla.1990); State v. Savino, 567 So.2d 892, 894 (Fla.1990). At present, the court agrees with the state that the defendant has failed to show the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case other than the bad character of the officers or their propensity to conduct themselves in a particular manner. For the reasons stated above, we find no error in the trial court's ruling on this issue.