Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

detective QT stranger sent out to learn the character of a witness to be &tted
to testify as to the result of his or her inqyiriese
So, 2d 187, 192 (Fla, 3rd D,C.A. 19771 *
Stripling v. T- State, 349
The fact that Mittlanan m y not have been
"sent out" to leam ~llmd~s reputation while investigating him is irrelevant;
Mittlm was rmt a neighbor or resident of any cxmmmity in which Ell&
-
resided, and he was certainly "sent out" to learn ___r_
abut him,
In B&er v. State, 294 So. 2d 392 (F'la. 4 D,C,A. 19741, and Bmks
-*
v. State, 381 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5 D,C,A, 19821, trial ccjurts pdtted police
-_I"..
offimr, to testify as to the defendant's bad reputation for truth and veracity.
Trial counsel made no objection in either case to the ccgnpetenq of the officers
to testify, These cases are no suppart for the state's position. me conviction
in Emles was reversed kcawe the officers were permitted, over objection, "to
state that they would not. believe the defendant under oath. It was held that
permitting such testimony was not harmless error becauser
Police officers, by virtue of their position, rightfclly
bring wj-th their testirmny an air of authority and
legithq. A jwy is inclined to give great weight to
their opinions as officers of the Law ... Id. at 328.
it would k an extramly pox precedent in the law ta permit police
officers who do not reside in a person's camunity of residence and neighborhood
~ testify
as to that prson's reputation for truth and veracity. This is
particularly true in a criminal case where the witness is the defendant or,
as here, a jail inmte. Flherc there are close ties between the reputation
witnesses and the matter in cont.zrover~, such "testhmny" k ms, not ''general
reputati.on", but reputation as viwd under the predcanjnant cloud of the specific
mntmversy at JELand.
Florida &st Coxst Railway Co,, supra, at 69-70. In a
criminal case, it would be a rare occasion indeed "ht a policeman would feel
cxnnfortable testifying that a defendant or a defense wi%ness had a g& reptation
for truth ard veracity, because it wuld Ix as much as telling the jury that the
police were wrong and the defendant innocent,
Page -58-