MELVIN SLOAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1983-03-09
No. 82-1480
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
427 So. 2d 808 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record it appears that error was committed when the trial court restricted Sloan’s cross examination of the complaining witness regarding charges by the State pending against the witness. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Bailey v. State, 411 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (Hurley, J., specially concurring); Lee v. State, 318 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Moreno v. State, 418 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). However, in reviewing the quantum and quality of the proofs against Sloan we are content that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981); Bailey v. State, supra. But see Moreno v. State, supra.1

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Jones v. State, 508 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
    …trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the cross-examination as to the witness Adderly. As to the witness, Steible, if error did occur it was at most harmless on this record. Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981); Sloan v. State, 427 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Section 924.33 Florida Statutes (1985). Therefore, for the reasons stated, the judgment, conviction and sentence be and they are hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw