BEST UNION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCISCO CRESPO, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Because the defendant answered in its interrogatory that it did not contend that “any person or entity other than the named defendant is or may be liable in whole or in part for the claims asserted against the defendant in this lawsuit,” the trial court properly excluded evidence that some other person or entity may be liable for the claims asserted against the defendant. See Office Depot, Inc. v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 587, 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (holding that trial judge has broad discretion in deciding whether to permit or exclude a witness’s testimony and that discovery rules should be construed and utilized to avoid “trial by ambush.”).
The remaining issues that were raised by the defendant lack merit. We affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. COX, 794 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2001)…about a just one. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935). Thus, a prosecutor has a duty not only “to fairly present the evidence and permit the jury to come to a fair and impartial verdict,” Pendarvis v. State, 752 So. 2d 75, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), but also “properly functions in a quasi-judicial capacity with reference to the accused ... to see that the accused is accorded a fair and impartial trial.” Gonzalez v. State, 97 So. 2d 127, 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957). By the nat…
-
Smith Dessin v. State, 868 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…pretrial motion to suppress. There is no question that “[a] pretrial motion to suppress is not preserved for appellate review unless the defendant makes a specific, contemporaneous objection at the time the evidence is admitted.” Pendarvis v. State, 752 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also D.T.N. v. State, 826 So. 2d 365, 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Therefore, if trial counsel did not object at trial to the admission of the evidence that was the subject of the motion to suppress, that issue was not properl…
-
D.T.N. v. State, 826 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Pendarvis v. State, 752 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that “[a] pretrial motion to suppress is not preserved for appellate review unless the defendant makes a specific contemporaneous objection at the time the evidence is admitted.”) ALTENBE RND, NORTHCUTT, and KELLY,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Off. Depot, Inc. v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)