Lewis v. State (1991)

Lewis v. State, 591 So. 2d 922, 925 (Fla. 1991). 6 evidence which might have possibly influenced the jury verdict.

However, relying upon general evidentiary principles, our courts have embraced the broader proposition that evidence of any sexual activity, consensual or not, by the complainant with “one other than the accused is generally irrelevant for determining the guilt of the accused.” Lewis v. State, 591 So. 2d 922, 924 (Fla. 1991) (citing Marr v. State, 494 So. 2d 1139, 1142 (Fla. 1986)).

United States v. Grimes, 413 F.2d 1376, 1378 (7thCir.l969) (citing Tatum v. United States, 190 F.2d 612, 617 (D.C.Cir.1951); United States v. Phillips, 217 F.2d 435, 442-43 (7thCir.l954)); see also United States v. Chatham, 568 F.2d 445, 450 (5thCir.l978); State v. Lujan, 192 Ariz. 448 , 967 P.2d 123, 127 (1998); Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922, 925-26 (Fla.1991). [¶ 26.] Evidence tending to establish a motive of E.S.B. to fabricate the allegations against defendant was certai…

As a mere digest, I offer the following: • Murray v. State, 838 So.2d 1073, 1083-85 (Fla.2002) (finding the trial court erred in precluding cross-examination of State's expert witness as to conversation he had with defense's expert witness); • Garcia v. State, 816 So.2d 554, 561-63 (Fla.2002) (finding the trial court erred in precluding the use of videotaped statements to impeach key State witness); • Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922, 925-26 (Fla.1991) (answering certified ques…

As a mere digest, I offer the following: • Murray v. State, 838 So.2d 1073, 1083-85 (Fla.2002) (finding the trial court erred in precluding cross-examination of State’s expert witness as to conversation he had with defense’s expert witness); • Garcia v. State, 816 So.2d 554, 561-63 (Fla.2002) (finding the trial court erred in precluding the use of videotaped statements to impeach key State witness); • Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922, 925-26 (Fla.1991) (answering certified ques…

"Florida's Rape Shield Statute is a codification of the rule of relevancy that a victim's prior sexual activity with one other than the accused is irrelevant for determining the guilt of an accused." Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922, 924 (Fla. 1991); see also Marr v. State, 494 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 1986).

In Lewis v. Florida, the defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting a child. 591 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 1991).

In Lewis v. State, 591 So. 2d 922, 925 (Fla. 1991), the supreme court recognized the general rule of relevancy regarding the prior sexual conduct of a sexual battery victim: “a victim of a sexual assault should not be subjected to having her sexual history brought up in open court,” but where “application of this rule interferes with confrontation rights, or otherwise precludes a defendant from presenting a full and fair defense, the rule must give way to the defendant's con…

See § 90.403, Fla. Stat.; Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922, 925 (Fla. 1991) (quoting Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231 , 109 S.Ct. 480 , 102 L.Ed.2d 513 (1988), for the proposition that the trial court may limit examination of a witness "to take account of such factors as `harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that [would be] repetitive or only marginally relevant.").

Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922, 925 (Fla.1991).

See Lewis v. State, 591 So. 2d 922, 924 (Fla. 1991) (acknowledging that in Marr the Court “explained that Florida’s Rape Shield Statute is a codification of the rule of relevancy that a victim’s prior sexual activity with one other than the accused is generally irrelevant for determining the guilt of the accused”); Kaplan v. State, 451 So. 2d 1386, 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (“[Florida’s Rape Shield Law] is merely a codification of this jurisdiction’s rule of relevance as it a…

See Lewis v. State, 591 So. 2d 922, 925 (Fla. 1991).

Carlyle v. State, 945 So. 3d 540 , 546 (Fla. 5 2d DCA 2006); Kaplan v. State, 451 So. 2d 1386, 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also § 90.403, Fla. Stat. A defendant’s “right to full and fair cross-examination, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, may limit [section 794.022]’s application when evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct is relevant to show bias or motive to lie.” Kaplan, 451 So. 2d at 1387 ; see also Lewis v. State, 591 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 1991) (holding that…

See Lewis v. State, 591 So. 2d 922, 925 (Fla. 1991) (citing Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 232 (1988) (recognizing that a trial court may impose reasonable limits on defense counsel’s inquiry into the potential bias of a prosecution witness)).

See Lewis v. State, 591 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1991).

See Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922 (Fla.1991).

See also Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922, 925 (Fla.1991) (“We recognize the public policy underlying this rule, i.e., that a victim of a sexual assault should not be subjected to having her sexual history brought up in open court, but hold that where, as occurred in this case, application of this rule interferes with confrontation rights, or otherwise precludes a defendant from presenting a full and fair defense, the rule must give way to the defendant’s constitutional rights.…

See Commonwealth v. Joyce, 382 Mass. 222 , 415 N.E.2d 181, 183-84 (1981) (police interrupted the encounter between the victim and the defendant and she had recently been charged for prostitution under similar circumstances); see also Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922, 923, 925 (Fla.1991); State v. Jalo, 27 Or.App. 845 , 557 P.2d 1359, 1360, 1361-62 (1976) (sexual history of young victims was relevant because making a false accusation would have kept the youth from getting in tro…

See Commonwealth v. Joyce, 382 Mass. 222 , 415 N.E.2d 181, 183-84 (1981) (police interrupted the encounter between the victim and the defendant, and she had recently been charged for prostitution under similar circumstances); see also Lewis v. State, 591 So. 2d 922, 923, 925 (Fla. 1991); State v. Jalo, 27 Or.

See Lawson v. State, 651 So.2d 713, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ("If the evidence is relevant to independently prove a material fact or issue, or if it goes to discredit a witness by pointing out bias, corruption, or lack of competency, it will be allowed."); compare Griffin, 827 So.2d at 1099 (finding no abuse of discretion in excluding testimony, as collateral, where offered solely to contradict a witness's testimony on an immaterial fact, and not to establish bias, corruption,…

See Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922 (Fla.1991), where the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that a rape defendant's constitutional right of confrontation was violated when he was not permitted to elicit testimony that the complaining witness, his stepdaughter, had engaged in sexual activity with her boyfriend, had lied about the sexual activity to her mother, and was scheduled to undergo a gynecological exam a week after she accused her stepfather of conduct that would explain th…

See Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922 (Fla.1991); Hammond v. State, 660 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

See Lewis v. State, 591 So. 2d 922, 925-26 (1991) (finding that exclusion of evidence that complainant fabricated rape charges to hide her sexual relationship with her boyfriend from her mother violated the defendant’s constitutional right to confront his accuser and develop his defense through reasonable cross-examination); State v. DeLawder, 28 Md.

See Roberts v. State, 510 So.2d 885 (Fla.1987)(rejecting the claim of sudden heat of passion where the defendant went to his car, got a bat, and repeatedly bludgeoned the victim in the back of the head), holding limited on other grounds by Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922 (Fla.1991).