Opinion ID: 1844186
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Letters From Parker to Audrey Rivers

Text: Audrey Rivers, who met Parker during her employment with the Florida Volunteer Lawyers Resource Center, testified regarding her friendship with Parker. In conjunction with Rivers' testimony, Parker sought to submit into evidence several letters that he wrote to Rivers during the time he was incarcerated for this crime. The State objected. The trial court sustained the State's objection, finding that the letters would be cumulative of other evidence, but did not prevent Rivers from characterizing portions of the letters from Parker. Parker contends that this ruling was in error. We disagree. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2003), provides that [r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. (Emphasis supplied.) In Mendoza v. State, 700 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1997), we held that the trial court did not err in excluding defense evidence of an application for political asylum in part because the document was merely a self-serving statement filed in the public records. Id. at 675. We further concluded that given the testimony of the defendant's mother about his childhood, the document would have been cumulative. See id. In this case, the trial court explicitly ruled that Rivers could characterize the contents of the letters. In fact, Rivers testified as to the types of things Parker wrote about, explaining that in some of the letters Parker expressed deep concern for her family, and in others, he expressed concern for his own family. Rivers then discussed the contents of a number of Parker's letters. For example, Rivers testified that in one letter Parker wrote about being taken from his cell to see the physician and describing what a heavenly sight it was to see freshly raked leaves in a rose garden. Because the letters were cumulative of other evidence and because the trial court allowed Rivers to characterize the contents of the letters, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the letters themselves into evidence.