Id. at 693, 51 S.Ct. at 220. In Moore v. State, 308 So.2d 563 (Fla.App. 2d 1975), the court permitted the State to question defense witnesses regarding their presence in jail in order to identify the place and time where the witnesses learned of the facts of which they were testifying. See Alford, supra. In the present case, the State apparently offered evidence of the charges pending against the witness in an effort to show general bias. A defense witness' supposed bias, attributable to charges concerning a totally distinct offense, is not a proper subject for impeachment. Cf. Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959); Watson v. Campbell, 55 So.2d 540, 541 (Fla. 1951) ("evidence of another and distinct crime committed by defendant, in no way connected by circumstances with the one for which he is being tried, is inadmissible"); Whitehead v. State, 279 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla.App. 2d 1973).
June 27, 1975. Certiorari denied. 308 So.2d 563. ADKINS, C.J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
The identity of interests between the defendant and the witness made the questions proper. In Moore v. State, Fla.App. 1975, 308 So.2d 563, the state was allowed to question defense witnesses regarding their presence in jail so as to show that the facts about which the witnesses were testifying were obtained by them from the defendant while he was in jail with them awaiting trial. However, absent some factor which connects the criminal charges pending against the witness to the case then being tried, proof of such pending charge is inadmissible and can be highly prejudicial.