DYRONE GILLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Witness Competency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have considered the briefs, the record, and the oral argument of counsel and find no reversible error. The judgment and sentence of the trial court is, therefore, AFFIRMED.
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur. ROBERT SMITH, Jr., C.J., dissents.
ROBERT SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge,
dissenting.
In my opinion the trial court unduly and prejudicially limited appellant’s valuable right of cross-examination by forbidding questions to the prosecution witness Smith concerning his conversations with authorities that, should he plead guilty and testify against appellant, the prosecutor would recommend no more than a 10-year sentence for Smith and the court would consider even a probationary sentence. Though, as the trial court noted Smith forfeited any benefit of that agreement by going to his separate trial, persisting vainly in his not guilty plea, Smith after conviction still expected and hoped for leniency in sentencing, and he hoped to earn it by testifying for the state in appellant’s separate trial. Appellant’s counsel was entitled to show not only that the witness Smith hoped for leniency but also the basis in his mind for that undoubted hope, whether well-founded or not.
In my opinion the trial court also unduly restricted counsel’s cross-examination into the credibility and competency of the same witness, by foreclosing questions concerning Smith’s drug usage and its effect upon his ability to testify clearly and truthfully.
I would reverse the judgment and require a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cruz v. State, 437 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…on for rehearing en banc was considered by the full court, and, after deliberation, a majority determined not to consider it. The en banc motion argues that our disposition of this cause conflicts with this court’s prior decision in Gilley v. State, 422 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), in which another panel of this court affirmed per curiam Gilley’s conviction for the offense of robbery. Gilley and Cruz were co-defendants and were tried together, although their [*698] cases were separately appealed. It appear…1 / 3
-
Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Patterson, 611 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…perty at the time of the conversion plus legal interest to the date of the verdict.” Id. (emphasis added). Accord Cutler v. Pelletier, 507 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 518 So. 2d 1277 (Fla.1987); Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Crockett, 422 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA1982). From the foregoing authorities, it is apparent that the correct measure of com [*560] pensatory damages for the conversion of appellee’s auto is the fair market value of the auto at the time of its conversion, plus prejudgment i…
-
First Am. Bank OF Palm Beach Cnty. v. Filberto Hernandez and Frances Hernandez, 442 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…t against the creditor bank in the face of an issue of fact as to the status of appellees’ loan payments to the appellant. We also believe the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury on damages. Cf. Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Crockett, 422 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). ANSTEAD, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence