THOMAS WHITFIELD, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Wilson v. State, 880 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
  …y are conspiring against you? DEFENSE COUNSEL: Objection. That is argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q: Yes or no, are they conspiring against you? A: Yes. We agree with Wilson that the prosecution’s questions were improper. In Whitfield v. State, 549 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), we stated that “[i]n a criminal prosecution, it is improper cross examination to ask a witness if another witness (who had previously testified) ‘was lying.’ ” We are not impressed by the State’s argument on appeal that we should…
• Ira Toomer v. State, 599 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
  …and sentence for attempted robbery and attempted battery. We affirm. It was, as the defense contends, impermissible for the State to ask a witness if another witness is lying. Mosley v. State, 569 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Whitfield v. State, 549 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Boatwright v. State, 452 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The objection was correctly sustained, and there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for mistrial. While the detective’s testimony exceeded to some deg…
• Duarte v. State, 598 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
  …2567-68, 33 L.Ed.2d 706, 713 (1972). Since there must be a new trial, we note that “[i]n a criminal prosecution, it is improper cross-examination to ask a witness if another witness (who had previously testified) ‘was lying.’ ” Whitfield v. State, 549 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The State's cross-examination transgressed that rule. Duarte’s conviction and sentence are reversed and remanded for a new trial. . Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). . Richardson v. State, 2…

Authorities Cited

• Forehand v. State, 537 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1989)
• Quinn v. Metro. Dade Cnty. Aviation Dep't, 452 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
• Johnson v. State, 525 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)