RICHARD N. NIXON, APPELLANT,
v.
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 Fourth District affirmed the trial court's conviction, finding no error in denying a competency hearing, no preserved error regarding expert testimony limitations, and no double jeopardy violation.
A trial court does not err in failing to conduct a competency hearing when the record does not establish a substantial question regarding the defendant's competency.
[1] An expert witness may not serve as a conduit for placing inadmissible hearsay evidence before the jury by relating the contents of articles or materials the expert has re…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard Nixon appealed his conviction, challenging the trial court's failure to conduct a competency hearing and its limitation of defense psychiatric…
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 Appeal Of Criminal Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find no error in the trial judge’s failure to conduct a competency hearing. See Lane v. State, 388 So. 2d 1022 (Fla.1980); Jones v. State, 362 So. 2d 1334 (Fla.1978). Any error in limiting the testimony of the defense psychiatric expert was not preserved for appeal, because of the failure to proffer the testimony. See § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995); Woodson v. State, 483 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). From what does appear in the record, the proposed testimony may have been inadmissible as hearsay, insofar as it involved the expert relating the contents of articles that he had read. The expert may not serve as a conduit for placing inadmissible evidence before the jury. See 3-M Corporation-McGhan Medical Reports Div. v. Brown, 475 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Kurynka v. Tamarac Hosp. Corp., 542 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, Richter v. Kurynka, 551 So. 2d 462, and 551 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1989), receded from on other grounds, Love v. Garcia, 611 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 704.1 (1996 ed.). Finally, we find no double jeopardy violation. Green v. State, 680 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see Boler v. State, 678 So. 2d 319 (Fla.1996).
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kloster Cruise, Ltd. v. Rentz, 733 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…azier, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 704.1 (Second Edition 1996). We do not think that the expert acted as a mere conduit for inadmissible hearsay, as described in such cases as Gerber v. Iyengar, 725 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Nixon v. State, 694 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Maklakiewicz v. Berton, 652 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Riggins v. Mariner Boat Works, Inc., 545 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); and Dept. of Corrections v. Williams, 549 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Assuming for purpos…
-
Ketterson v. In re Est. OF Coreen Mary Bruns, 711 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…d the attorney proffer the additional testimony he wished to present. Any error in cutting off further testimony at 4:30 p.m. was not preserved, because of appellant’s failure to proffer the testimony he was seeking to present. See Nixon v. State, 694 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Roberts v. Holloway, 581 So. 2d 619, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). The trial court’s decision to terminate cross examination was within its power to “exercise reasonable control over the mode ... of…
-
Moser v. State, 763 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…d not proffer the events and conversations with Detective Wolfort of January 12. Since the trial court did not refuse appellant the right to make a proffer of that evidence, this issue has not been preserved for appellate review. See Nixon v. State, 694 So. 2d 157, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). However, for the reasons stated below, the error, if any, in the trial court’s refusal to consider the proffered evidence and to consider evidence of Detective Wolfort’s conversations with…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Afghari Boler v. State, 678 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1996)
- Hayward Lane v. State, 388 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1980)
- 3-M Corporation-McGHAN Med. Reports Div. v. Gay Brown, 475 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Jones v. State, 362 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 1978)
- Kurynka v. Tamarac Hosp. Corp., Inc., 542 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Alman Hugh Green v. State, 680 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Garfield James Woodson v. State, 483 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Love v. Garcia, 611 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)