Further, the State’s parting shot was to make it appear that the
defendant’s testimony that the victim “was acting crazy like on cocaine” was just
an assumption. Of course, the State knew that the toxicology results (excluded on
the State’s motion) confirmed the defendant’s observations. This cross-
examination was totally improper. Because this cross-examination deprived the
defendant of a fair trial, we must reverse for a new trial.
the order in limine. We conclude that, so long as the defendant takes the stand and
testifies to his observation of the intoxication of the victim, the toxicology results
This case stands for the proposition that when a deceased is acting irrationally and it turns out the deceased was intoxicated on alcohol and cocaine, and the defendant testifies to observing the irrational behavior, the toxicology results are admissible.
According to Professor Ehrhardt, “The conduct of the victim is
material under the substantive criminal law only in a few situations. The most
common situation is when the defense asserts that the accused acted in self-
defense.” Charles W. Ehrhardt, Ehrhadt’s Florida Evidence, § 404.6 at 207 (2009)