Court Opinion

ID: 9405411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 15:11:07.761789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:22.099531
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                               FOURTH DISTRICT

                        KATHRYN L. KUGELMANN,
                              Appellant,

                                       v.

                           STATE OF FLORIDA,
                                Appellee.

                               No. 4D22-2882

                               [June 28, 2023]

  Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach   County;    Robert    Panse,     Judge;     L.T.    Case     No.
502022MM000795ANB.

  Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Elijah Giuliano, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

   Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay A. Warner,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

   Kathryn Kugelmann appeals her conviction and sentence after a jury
found her guilty of battery and petit theft. Kugelmann argues the county
court erred when it allowed the arresting officer to testify that he arrested
her because her actions constituted a battery and that she was the
aggressor. On that issue, we agree and reverse.

    “[A] witness’s opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused is not
admissible.” Martinez v. State, 761 So. 2d 1074, 1079 (Fla. 2000). Such
testimony is precluded, regardless of its relevance, by section 90.403,
Florida Statutes (2022), because “its probative value is substantially
outweighed by unfair prejudice to the defendant.” Id. Additionally, the
danger of prejudice is heightened when the witness testifying as to the
defendant’s guilt is a police officer. Id. at 1080; see also Roundtree v. State,
145 So. 3d 963, 965–67 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (reversible error to admit
officer’s statements that largely consisted of officer’s opinion about
appellant’s guilt, thereby invading the province of the jury).
   We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial. We affirm the
remaining issues which Kugelmann has raised without comment.

   Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CIKLIN, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

                           *        *        *

    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                    2