NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME FORFILING

MOTIONFOR REHEARINGEXPIRES.
OR,IF FILED,DISPOSEDOF.

IN THE CIR,CUTTCOURT OF TffE

ELEVENTHJUDICIALCIR.CUITDI AW
FORMIAMI-DADE COUNTY,FLORDA

CAR.LOSMILLER,
APPELLATE DIVISION
Appellant,
CASE NO. OE-326AP
lnwer Tribunal CaseNo. M07l 0544
STATEOF FLORIDA,
OPINION
Appellee.

opinionfiled:
13ltbfol
An appealfrom a Final Judgmentby the CountyCourtof Miami-badeCounty,Florida.

CarlosMiller, pro se,Appellant.

KatherineFernandezRundle,StateAttorney,aqd IgnacioJ.Yazquez,Jr., AssistantState

Attomey for Appellee.

BeforePLATZER.,SCOLA andFREEMAN,JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Miller, Appellantand Defendantbelow, appealshis convictionand sentencefor

ResistingArrest and Obstructionof a Public Street. Finding error in both the convictionand

sentence,
we reverse.

Miller, a photojournalist, himselfandfive City

wasarrestedfollowing anencounterbetween

of Miami policeofficers. Theofficerswereinvestigatinganaccidenton a heavilytraveledroadway.

Miller wasattemptingto photographthemdoingso. TheoflicersinstructedMiller to leavethe area

and an argumentensued.At one point, while being moved from the roadway Miller snappeda

PageI of5
fI
photographat closerange,with the flashengaged,
of theofficer. Miller wassubsequently
arested

and chargedwith multiplecriminalandcivil infractions.

At thetrial, Miller testifiedin his own defense.Duringcross-examination,

theCourtallowed

the State,over objection,to questionMiller aboutthe contentsof a blog createdby him several

monthsafter the incident.In theblog, Miller questioned

policetacticsacrossthe country. In some

postings,officerswerereferredto as"Gestapo"or "Nazis". Additionally,theStatewaspermittedto

questionMiller concerningan articlehe wrote over a yearafterhis arrestin which he expressed

negativeopinionsaboutthepoliceanddiscussed
policebrutalityin Los Angeles.

At closing,the Stateargued:

...(I)in somewayor anotherwe're all studentsof history. Whenthe

Nazisandtheir Gestapoput someone'sheadto theground,it didn't
look like this. It did not. But that'sthewayMr. Miller ashe saidin
his own unvarnishedopinion feelsaboutthe police. And that's the
story that he's writing about the police, and that's the story that
you'r€goingto hearaboutthepoliceon carlosmiller.com ....

The Statearguesthatthequestionswerepermissibleasimpeachment
to showbiasagainst

police offtcers. Courtshavelong allowedwitnessbiasto be exploredthroughcollateralevidence.

For example,in Tanziv. State,964So.2d 106,115(Fla.2007),theStatewaspermittedto impeach

thetestimonyof a witnessby raisingactscommittedin aseparate

venue."No areais moredeserving

of 'wide latitude'thanthedefendant'sability in a criminalcaseto arguethe'credibilityandbiasesof

the witnesses
who testifiedat trial.' Williamsv. State,912So. 2d66,68(Fla.4th DCA 2005)

(quotingGoodrichv. State,854So.2d 663,665 (Fla.3d DCA 2003). Seealso Carlylev. State,945

So.2d 540 (Fla. }ilDCA2006) (a defendanthasthe absoluteright to fully cross-examine

adverse

witnessesto discreditthemby showingbias,prejudice,or interest);Gravesv. State,937So.2d 1286

(Fla.4th DCA 2006)(a criminaldefendanthasconsiderable

latitudein crossexaminationto elicit

testimonyshowingthebiasof a witness);Minusv. State,901So.2d344(Fla.4th DCA 2005)(for

Page2 of5
 the purposeof discreditinga witness,the Sixth Amendmentallowsa defendanta wide rangeof

cross-examination
asa matterof right in regardto his motives,interest,or animus.)

However,eventhisrightis not withoutlimits. SeeNelsonv.State,704So.2d752(Fla.5th

(
DCA 1998)(biason partof prosecution
witnessis validpointof inquiryin cross-examination,
but

prospectofbias doesnotopendoorto everyquestionthatmightpossiblydevelopsubject;evidence

of biasmay be inadmissibleif it unfairlyprejudicesor misleadsthetrier of fact).

Moreover,we find a materialdistinctionbetweenattackinga witnessby collateralattackand

doing so to a defendant.Expertwitnessescanbe replacedandfact witnessesmay be discredited

without impugning the defendant. Further,juries cannotpunish witnessesthernselvesfor their

collateralwrongs,butmaybeledto do sowhenthecollateralwrongis committedbythe defendant.In

sum,introductionof a defendant's theriskthatthecollateralactwill

collateralactprofoundlyincreases

grosslyovershadow
whateverbiasit wasintendedto prove.

The standardofreviewofa trial court'sevidentiaryrulings

is abuseofdiscretion..Fiupatrick

v. State,900 So.2d495.514-15(F1a.2005\.
The trial court'sdiscretionis limited, however,by the

rulesofevidence,Johnston.863
So.Zdat278.andbytheprinciples
ofstaredecisis.Section90.402.

Florida Statutes(2005)providesthat all relevantevidenceis admissibleexceptasprovidedby law.

However,relevantevidenceis inadmissibleif its probativevalueis substantiallyoutweighedby the

dangerofunfair prejudice.Thecourtmtrstconductabalancingtestin orderto applythis discretion.

Despitebareattemptsto link Miller's commentsto testimonialbias,theStateplacedCarlos

Miller's abstractedcommentson trial. Miller's comments,admittedfor the limited purposeof

impeachment, evidenceof his guilt. "[S]uchauseofimpeachment

ultimatelybecame testimonyhas

beenheldto be reversibleerror."Merrill v. State,228So.2d 305,307(Fla.3d DCA 1969)(citing

So. E49(Fla. 1903);Hernandez

Adamsv. State,15So.905,908(Fla.I 894);Whorelyv. State,33 v.

state,22 So.2d 781,786(Fla. 1945)).

Page3 of5
 -:--

We seeno reasonable
basisthattheinflammatoryissuesof NazismandGestapo,or

theactionsofl,os AngelesPoliceOffrcers,shouldhavebeeninjectedinto this,a misdemeanor

trial,

involving the City of Miami Police. We rejectthe State'scontentionthat Defensecounselhad a

/
reasonable
opportunityto rehabilitatethe witness.To do so would haverequiredintroducingand

explainingthe article,screeningthereferenced
videosandothermaterialtakenof theLosAngeles

melee,andincludingthe contriteresponses
of theseniorLosAngelesPoliceoffrcials. It would,in

essence,
haveturnedMiller's misdemeanor
trial into anexaminationof a violent,cross-continental

incident.In thatthis evidenceis moreprejudicialthanprobativeunderthesecircumstances,

we find

the trial courtabusedits discretionandreversetheconviction.

Miller has also raisedthe issueof sentencing.In that there was no contemporaneous

objectionmadeat trial, this issuewasnot preserved

for appellatereview.We do howeverwrite to

addressthe Court'scommentsat sentencing.

The Staterecommendedthat theCourtsentenceDefendantto anadjudication,courtcosts,an

course,50 communityservicehoursandttree-monthsreportingprobation.Prior
angermanagement

to imposingsentence,
the Court stated:

(to theDefendant)... I knowthatthis isn't evenimportantenoughfor

you to standup while you're being sentencedon a criminal offense
andfrankly ... your attitudein my opinionis like you'regladthatthis
all happened.
You've had a prettycavalierattitudetheselast two da1a,...theway
you've been chitchattingwith the peoplethat are here with you,
talking on the phoneduringtrial.
I can't imaginewhy youthoughtthatthis situationwasworth getting
arrestedfor. I can't imagineit for thelife ofme. I don't know if you
think you're somekind ofhero or somethinglike that,but ifyou want
to seea hero go visit Arlington. All ri.ght.
I don't think anyof thesepeoplethat arebackherearethosepeople
that aregrvingyou thethumbsup on yourblog. If I wereto sentence
you to jail noneof thosepeoplewould volunteerto go in thereand
servethe time with you. Theymightsaytheywould,but Iguarantee
you they wouldn't. I'm shockedat your lack of remorse.

Page4 of5
 The jury having found you guilty, I'm adjudicatingyou guilty. I'm
imposing a $250 fine, there's Court costsandsurcharges.I'm placing
you on one (year) reporting probation, a special condition anger
course,a specialcondition 100 hours of community serviceat arate
of ten hours minimum per month and all conditionsto be completed
/ with ten months of todav.

The court imposedan additionalfine andadditionalcourtcostson thecivil infraction.

It is constitutionallyimpermissiblefor a trial court to imposea sentencebasedupon a

defendant'sassertion before,during,andaftertli'al. Ritterv. State,E85So.2d 413(Fla.

of innocence

200$; Holtonv. State,573So.2d284,292(Fla.1990).TheStatecontends

thisdid not occur,stating

with a merepassingremarkon
". . . thecourtreviewedthetotaltrial evidenceandenteredits sentence

remorsein the contextof a commenton the Appellant'smisbehaviorand demeanor." On the

assumptionthatwe havereviewedthesametranscript,werejecttheState'sinterpretationofthe record.

NorthAm.Co.,1nc.,703F. Supp.6El, 685,n.15(N.D.ru., 1988).

SeeU.S.Fire Ins.Co.v.Beltmann

TheStatelooksto Meltonv.State,949So.2d994,1015(Fla.2005)andShellitov.
State,70l

So.2d 837,842(Fla. 1997),to supportthepropositionthata passingor de minimrsreference

to a

guiltyparty'slackofremorsewillnotconstituteerror.
WeagreewlthMeltonandShellito,butfind

colloquy,thetrial court'sconcern,in
theyhaveno applicationhere.As evidencedby thesentencing

largepart,wasfor the 'real' heroesat Arlington,for Miller's supporters,

andfor Miller's 'shocking'

lack of remorse. The trial court's commentswere not so muchpassingreferences,but, instead,

groundsfor sentencing.

beforea
sentenced
REVER.SEDwith directionsthat Defendantbe tried and,if necessary,

differentjudge. (PLATZER, SCOLA andFREEMAN,JJ.,CONCUR)

Httrqry.+EDro
@rflreELbF'
Ig$YmRrr
tY@ffi

Page5 of5