Correia v. State
654 So.2d 952, 1995 WL 144144 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to impeach a witness on a collateral matter. A matter is considered collateral if the impeaching evidence is not relevant to prove a material fact or issue in the case, or to show the witness's bias, corruption, or lack of competency, but is offered solely for the purpose of contradiction.
Facts:
- The victim and his friends experienced a flat tire and were waiting for assistance.
- Occupants of a maroon Mercury Cougar drove by, yelling at and threatening the victim's group.
- The Cougar made a U-turn, and two occupants exited the vehicle.
- The victim identified Nicholas Correia as the individual who retrieved a gun from the trunk and pointed it at him.
- As the victim fled, he heard two gunshots.
- Correia asserted an alibi defense, claiming he was sick at home at the time of the incident.
- A witness, Nancy Ericksen, testified that she was at Correia's home on the day of the incident, that he was in bed with a 101-degree fever, and that she gave him Tylenol.
- Ericksen testified that she and Correia's mother spent the afternoon at the home, 'snacking and eating and watching TV and talking.'
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida prosecuted Nicholas Correia in a state trial court for aggravated assault with a firearm.
- At trial, the court permitted the State to introduce testimony from rebuttal witnesses to impeach Correia's alibi witness.
- A jury found Correia guilty of the charge.
- Correia, as the appellant, appealed the conviction to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by allowing the state to introduce extrinsic evidence to impeach an alibi witness on collateral matters that were first raised during cross-examination?
Opinions:
Majority - Pariente, J.
Yes. A trial court commits reversible error by allowing the state to introduce extrinsic evidence to impeach an alibi witness on collateral matters. It is well-established that if a party cross-examines a witness concerning a collateral matter, the cross-examiner must 'take' the answer and may not subsequently impeach the witness by introducing extrinsic evidence to contradict it. In this case, details like whether the alibi witness was watching cable television, where she administered Tylenol, and who else was in the house were collateral to the material issue of whether Correia was at home. These issues were raised by the state on cross-examination. The state was then improperly permitted to call rebuttal witnesses—Correia's mother and a cable company custodian—to contradict Ericksen's testimony on these minor points. This turned the cable television issue into a 'trial within a trial' and improperly attacked the witness's credibility on non-material facts. Given that the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming, this error was not harmless and requires a new trial.
Dissenting - Glickstein, J.
No. The trial court did not err because the evidence was not collateral, but was relevant to the credibility of the alibi. When a defendant presents an alibi, the details comprising that alibi become a material issue. Inconsistencies in seemingly minor details, such as what the witness was doing or watching, can legitimately influence a jury to disbelieve the entire alibi. Because the details were made relevant by the alibi defense itself, the state was properly allowed to introduce rebuttal testimony to contradict them and challenge the credibility of the alibi witness and the defense as a whole.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the evidentiary principle known as the 'collateral matter rule' for impeachment. The court's decision clarifies that even within the context of an alibi defense, where details might seem crucial, the rule still applies. The prosecution cannot introduce new witnesses or evidence (extrinsic evidence) solely to disprove a minor detail elicited on cross-examination. This precedent prevents the trial from being derailed by 'mini-trials' on tangential issues and forces attorneys to challenge credibility on such matters through cross-examination alone, rather than by introducing a new stream of evidence that could confuse the jury and waste judicial resources.
