R.B.W., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
R.B.W., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
842 So. 2d 223
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2003)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
As the state concedes, the juvenile disposition orders being appealed do not contain all of the information required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(c)(2). We affirm the appealed orders as to the findings that the appellant violated his probation and as to the disposition imposed in connection with those violations, but we remand the case for the entry of amended orders which conform with rule 8.115(c)(2).
VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G„ Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyon Dale Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ility [*616] of a witness. See Ruiz v. State, 743 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla.1999) (“[An attorney] may not express his personal opinion on ... the credibility of witnesses.”) (quoting United States v. Garza, 608 F. 2d 659, 663 (5th Cir.1979)); Kelly v. State, 842 So. 2d 223, 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see also Lingle v. Dion, 776 So. 2d 1073, 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“An attorney’s expression of his personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness ... is entirely improper.”). For this reason, too, the trial court did…
-
Bordelon v. State, 908 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…lity of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). When new material is developed on redirect examination, recross-examination must be allowed. See Kelly v. State, 842 So. 2d 223, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that, while “[t]he decision to allow recross examination is generally subject to the discretion of the trial court ..., when new matters are introduced during redirect examination, denying recross effectively denies…
-
Celeste Chambers v. State, 200 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…” U.S. Const, amend. VI. Under this clause, a criminal defendant “has an absolute right to full and fair cross-examination.” McDuffie, 970 So. 2d at 324 (citing Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 337 (Fla.1982)). This Court held in Kelly v. State, 842 So. 2d 223, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), that “when new matters are introduced during redirect examination, denying recross effectively denies the opposing party the right to any cross examination on the new matter and, thus, violates the confrontation clause.” Se…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence