447 So. 2d 1020 - Harris v. State

PER CURIAM.

¶1We reverse the appellant’s second degree murder conviction for a new trial because of the prosecutor’s totally irrelevant and highly prejudicial cross-examination of the defendant and his girlfriend-witness to the effect that he was a procurer and she, his prostitute.1 Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975); Harris v. State, 427 So.2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Malcolm v. State, 415 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Glantz v. State, 343 So.2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In the light of the relative closeness of the self-defense claim asserted by the defendant, we cannot find that this clear error was harmless. Wright v. State, 446 So.2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and cases cited; compare State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984).

¶2Reversed.

¶3. In addition, the state attorney did not proffer evidence sufficient even to show that there was any truth to these allegations. See Smith v. State, 414 So.2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and cases cited.