Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog
Criminal trials often turn on strategic choices made in the moment, and those choices can carry significant evidentiary consequences. One recurring issue involves whether a defendant who does not testify can nonetheless place credibility at issue through statements introduced by the defense. A recent Florida decision addressed this precise question in the context of a burglary prosecution, clarifying when prior convictions may be disclosed to a jury for impeachment purposes. If you are charged with burglary or any other theft crime, you should consider speaking with a Clearwater theft crime defense attorney about your rights
Case Setting
Allegedly, the victim was away from her residence when a home security system alerted her to movement near a sliding glass door, which served as the only entrance from the fenced backyard into the dwelling. She viewed a live video feed, observed an unknown individual inside the home, activated an alarm, and contacted law enforcement.
Reportedly, officers responded to the scene and reviewed surveillance footage showing an individual entering through the sliding glass door, moving through the residence, and exiting quickly once the alarm sounded. The victim later noticed that a jewelry box in a bedroom had been opened and that earrings were missing, with no signs of forced entry.
It is alleged that officers encountered the defendant shortly thereafter in a nearby commercial area wearing clothing consistent with the individual depicted on the security video. Law enforcement detained the defendant, conducted a pat-down, and did not locate any jewelry or other property from the residence.
It is reported that the State charged the defendant with burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. At trial, the defense conceded that the defendant was the person shown on the surveillance footage and did not dispute that the defendant lacked permission to enter the home. The defense theory instead focused on the State’s alleged failure to prove intent to commit an offense inside the dwelling.
Allegedly, during cross-examination of a law enforcement officer, defense counsel elicited testimony that the officer had asked the defendant whether he possessed any jewelry and that the defendant denied having any on his person. Following this exchange, the prosecution requested permission to inform the jury of the defendant’s prior felony and misdemeanor convictions involving dishonesty, arguing that the defense had introduced a hearsay statement subject to impeachment. The court permitted this testimony, and the jury convicted the defendant of burglary. He then appealed.
Impeachment Evidence in Criminal Cases
On appeal, the court reviewed the trial court’s decision to permit impeachment with prior convictions under an abuse of discretion standard, while addressing related evidentiary questions de novo. The court analyzed the interaction between Florida statutes governing hearsay, impeachment of declarants, and the balancing test that excludes relevant evidence when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
The court explained that when a party introduces an out-of-court statement for its truth, the declarant’s credibility becomes subject to attack as though the declarant testified at trial. Under Florida law, qualifying prior convictions may be used for impeachment if they involve dishonesty or meet statutory sentencing thresholds. However, such evidence remains subject to exclusion if it poses an undue risk of unfair prejudice.
Applying these principles, the court determined that the defendant’s denial of possessing jewelry constituted self-serving and exculpatory hearsay in the context of burglary and theft charges. The court reasoned that the defense intentionally elicited the statement to support its theory and that the statement invited the jury to assess the defendant’s credibility. Because credibility was placed at issue, the trial court acted within its discretion by allowing impeachment with the number of prior convictions, while withholding details about their nature and issuing limiting instructions.
The court further emphasized that juries retain the authority to accept or reject testimony, even when uncontradicted. The absence of directly conflicting evidence did not remove credibility from consideration. As such, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Consult a Dedicated Clearwater Theft Crime Defense Attorney
If you are facing burglary or theft charges, it is critical to work with counsel who understands how trial strategy intersects with Florida evidence law. The dedicated Clearwater criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can advise you of your rights and help you seek the best outcome available. provide experienced representation to clients throughout Pinellas County and across Florida. You can contact us online or call 727-897-5413 to schedule a confidential consultation.