Opinion ID: 1878922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: State's Impeachment of Gore

Text: Gore also argues that the State improperly questioned him on cross examination during the penalty phase about collateral crimes allegedly committed by Gore against other women. Gore argues that the State's questioning constituted improper Williams rule evidence and was admitted solely to demonstrate Gore's bad character or propensity to commit crime. We disagree and hold that Gore opened the door to this line of questioning by placing his propensity for violence in issue by stating that he was not a violent person. There is a different standard for judging the admissibility and relevance of evidence in the penalty phase of a capital case than during the guilt phase, especially where the focus of the evidence is directed towards the character of the defendant. See Hildwin v. State, 531 So.2d 124, 127 (Fla.1988). As this Court has stated: [D]uring the penalty phase of a capital case, the state may rebut defense evidence of the defendant's nonviolent nature by means of direct evidence of specific acts of violence committed by the defendant provided, however, that in the absence of a conviction for any such acts, the jury shall not be told of any arrests or criminal charges arising therefrom. Id. at 128; see Smith v. State, 515 So.2d 182, 185 (Fla.1987) (stating that the State properly presented evidence of defendant's prior manslaughter conviction during the penalty phase after defense witness testified that the defendant would never harm anyone). Similar to Hildwin, in the present case, Gore placed his character in issue by taking the stand and testifying you heard that I'm not or not known as a violent person, and I'm not a violent person. In doing so, Gore opened the door to the State's impeachment evidence and the State proceeded to properly question Gore about his collateral acts of violence towards women to impeach Gore's assertions that he was a nonviolent person. [11] We hold that the State's questioning was proper rebuttal and the trial court did not err in allowing the State to question Gore about his prior acts of violence.