D. C., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination of state witnesses on issues of bias and credibility.
Appellant was adjudicated delinquent for offenses against two police officers. Defense counsel attempted to cross-examine the officers regarding prior…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Resisting Arrest Without Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
By Petition for Delinquency it was represented that appellant committed several offenses against two police officers; (1) aggravated assault, (2) unlawful obstruction or opposition of the officers in the performance of their legal duties, (3) resisting arrest without violence and/or aggravated assault, and (4) battery on the same officers, all arising out of a single episode. Appellant brings this appeal from an adjudication of delinquency on each charge. We reverse because the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination of the state’s witnesses on issues going to bias and credibility.
The two officers were the state’s only witnesses. On cross-examination defense counsel sought to establish that both officers had visited defendant’s home prior to the date of the alleged offenses and that based on events of that visit, defendant’s sister had filed charges against both witnesses. The court sustained the state’s objection to the line of questioning.
The right to confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments may in certain cases require an opportunity to develop issues of bias by cross-examination. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). All witnesses are subject to cross-examination for the purpose of discrediting them by bias, prejudice or interest and this is particularly so where a key witness is being cross-examined. Jones v. State, 385 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Webb v. State, 336 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The discretion normally accorded the trial court concerning the scope of cross-examination was clearly abused in this case.
The adjudication of delinquency is reversed and the cause remanded for a new hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)…. § 90.405(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). The court pointed out that Pettis had not defended on the ground that the officer had an interest, bias or motive to lie as did the defendants in Mendez v. State, 412 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and D.C. v. State, 400 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Pettis filed a motion for rehearing, asserting that because the state could not appeal the order denying the motion in limine, it had no authority to seek review of the order by petition for common law cer-tiorari. As a conseque…
-
Moreno v. State, 418 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…o discredit his testimony by showing bias, prejudice or interest, particularly where the witness is crucial to the case. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1976); D.C. v. State, 400 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Cowheard v. State, 365 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1979); Blanco v. State, 353 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Crespo v. State, 344 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Lee v. State, 318 So. 2d 431…
-
Ulysses LEE v. State, 422 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ope of cross-examination, it must insure that there will be ample latitude for pertinent inquiry and that such limitations as are placed on the cross-examination are done with solicitude for the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. See D.C. v. State, 400 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Lutherman v. State, 348 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); United States v. Tracey, supra; United States v. Kinnard, 465 F. 2d 566 (D.C.Cir.1972); Wynn v. United States, supra. However, as in the case of other relevant evidence, evid…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974)
- Webb v. State, 336 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Doyle Harold Jones v. State, 385 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)