DANIEL HURST, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
WARNER, J.
At appellant’s trial for attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, the trial court refused to permit defense counsel to recross a witness. Whether to allow recross-examination is subject to the trial court’s broad discretion over the admission of evidence. See Sullivan v. State, 751 So. 2d 128, 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing re-cross in this case, where the prosecutor did not bring out any new matter on re-direct, but only a detail which had been addressed in cross-examination. See U.S. v. Ross, 33 F. 3d 1507, 1517-18 (11th Cir.1994); U.S. v. Morris, 485 F. 2d 1385, 1387 (5th Cir.1973).
Affirmed.
GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knight v. State, 919 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…requested to re-cross-examine Ceocarelli about the pre-trial line-up identification. The trial court refused defense counsel’s request. A trial court’s decision not to allow re-cross-examination is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hurst v. State, 825 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Louisy v. State, 667 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing defense counsel from re-crossing Ceocarelli. Defense counsel opened the door to the line-up issue duri…1 / 2
-
Tennyson v. State, 254 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…is reviewed for abuse of discretion." Knight v. State, 919 So. 2d 628, 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). It is not an abuse of discretion for a trial court to deny recross when the prosecutor does not raise any new matters during redirect. See Hurst v. State, 825 So. 2d 517, 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). "The admission or rejection of [evidence for the purpose of impeachment] rests in the sound discretion of the trial court who must judge the propriety thereof from what transpires upon the trial, and the conduct of the witn…
-
Sandoval v. State, 198 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…r to M.H. returning to her home country was the incident where appellant had tried to pull.her shorts down. ... “Whether to allow re-cross-examination is subject to the trial court’s broad discretion over the admission of evidence.” Hurst v. State, 825 So. 2d 517, 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). However, “[w]hen new material is developed on redirect examination, reeross-examination must be allowed.” Bordelon v. State, 908 So. 2d 543, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). “[D]enying recross effectively denies the opposing party…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507 (11th Cir. 1994)
- United States v. Morris, 485 F.2d 1385 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Sullivan v. State, 751 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)