RICHARD MCGEE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
KELLY, Judge.
Richard McGee appeals from his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery. He argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a proper Faretta1 inquiry before denying McGee’s request to represent himself. We agree that the trial court erroneously focused its inquiry on whether McGee possessed the skill to represent himself rather than on whether his decision to waive counsel was knowing and intelligent. See Hill v. State, 688 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1996). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
CASANUEYA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur. . See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linn v. Basil D. Fossum, M.D., 946 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2006)…e “of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinion expressed.” § 90.704. Second, an expert cannot bolster his or her testimony by testifying that a particular treatise supports an opinion. See Liberatore v. Kaufman, 835 So. 2d 404, 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and the cases cited therein. But literature that the expert or trial court recognizes as authoritative can be used in cross-examination. See 90.706, Fla. Stat.2 Section 90.704, which was modeled after Federal Rule of Evide…
-
Dorsey v. Karan Gaddam Reddy, M.D., 931 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 766 So. 2d 1228, 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)). Dorsey cites two cases that note in passing that it is error to permit a doctor to testify that he was named a top doctor in a survey or magazine. See Liberatore v. Kaufman, 835 So. 2d 404, 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Tomlian v. Grenitz, 782 So. 2d 905, 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), rev’d on other grounds, Grenitz v. Tomlian, 858 So. 2d 999 (Fla.2003). Neither case suggests that such a statement is per se reversible or fundamental error. “To…
-
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari, 228 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…rt may rely on hearsay in reaching the expert’s opinion, an expert’s testimony may not merely be used as a conduit for the introduction of the otherwise inadmissible evidence.” (internal quotes and citation omitted)); see also Liberatore v. Kaufman, 835 So. 2d 404, 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (listing cases prohibiting bolstering of expert testimony on direct examination). The use of articles, journals or treatises as substantive evidence has long been held improper under Florida law “because the opposing party c…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Hill v. State, 688 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1996)