Emelien v. State

Full title: BLONDINE EMELIEN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Feb 14, 2007

No. 4D06-561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2007)

Opinion

No. 4D06-561.

February 14, 2007.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Eileen M. O'Connor, Judge; L.T. Case No. 05-1092 CF10A.

Dan Hallenberg of The Law Office of Dan Hallenberg, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Thomas A. Palmer, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

KLEIN, J.

Appellant was convicted of improper exhibition of a deadly weapon. He argues that fundamental error occurred when a detective testified that, after he questioned the victim while investigating the crime, he believed she was being truthful. We affirm because defendant opened the door to this testimony.

The victim testified that as she was driving she was blocked by three vehicles containing ten to fifteen other people who threatened her and damaged her car with a baseball bat and other unidentifiable objects. She was able to escape without being injured and identified appellant as one of those involved. The incident apparently arose out of a romantic relationship and some of the assailants were known to her.

One of the detectives, after testifying that he took a statement from the victim under oath and warned her about perjury, was asked by the state if he believed what the victim said in her statement. He responded in the affirmative and there was no objection, but appellant argues that this was fundamental error.

In opening statement defense counsel was critical of this detective because, in his investigation, he did not contact appellant or some of the others involved before concluding that charges should be filed. It was in response to that assertion that the state asked the detective if he believed the victim, because that explained why he did not contact the suspects during the investigation. We conclude that under these circumstances the appellant opened the door for the state to elicit this response. Cartwright v. State, 885 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find them to be without merit.

Affirmed.

STEVENSON, C.J., and SHAHOOD, J., concur.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing