DAVID DENNIS AND CHESTER PALMER, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Dennis and Palmer were convicted of robbery after a jury trial in Dade County, Florida. On appeal, they challenged the trial court's exclusion of a cross-examination question regarding pending criminal charges against the state's rebuttal witness, claiming a violation of their constitutional right to confront witnesses.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the question about pending charges, and no constitutional rights of the defendants were violated. Cross-examination regarding criminal charges pending against a witness is within the discretion of the trial court, subject to review only for abuse of discretion, and no such abuse occurred here.
“the general rule upon this subject, sustained by the weight of authority, is that cross-examination of a witness as to indictments or charges before conviction against him, of criminal offenses, is a matter of discretion in the trial court, not subject to review on writ of error or appeal, unless the discretion is abused.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that trial court discretion in excluding such cross-examination questions is reviewable only for abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDennis and Palmer were tried by jury and found guilty of robbery. The state called Lucius Cuff as a rebuttal witness who contradicted the defendants' …
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 Constitutional Right To Confrontation cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants, Dennis and Palmer were tried by a jury and found guilty of robbery in Dade County, Florida.
On this appeal they assert two points for reversal. Their first point is governed by the decision of this court in Belton v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 238; and does not constitute a ground for reversal.
Their other point arises from the following which transpired at the trial. The state called one Lucius Cuff as a rebuttal witness. He contradicted the testimony of the defendants on several crucial points. Counsel for the defendants sought to impeach Cuff on cross-examination by asking him whether he was presently under criminal *662charges. The state’s objection to this question was sustained and the question was stricken from the record. In the absence of the jury a proffer was made to show that an information was then pending against Cuff, charging him with the crime of aggravated assault and that a trial date had been set. The proffer was denied.
The defendants claim that the trial court improperly restricted their constitutional right to cross-examine the state’s chief rebuttal witness by excluding this question and the proffered answer.
This question was treated by the Supreme Court of Florida in Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713, 719 (1899).
Where a state witness was asked on cross-examination, “Are there any criminal charges pending against you ?”, this question was excluded upon objections by the state. The court determined that “the general rule upon this subject, sustained by the weight of authority, is that cross-examination of a witness as to indictments or charges before conviction against him, of criminal offenses, is a matter of discretion in the trial court, not subject to review on writ of error or appeal, unless the discretion is abused. * * * There is nothing in this case to show an abuse of discretion by the ruling complained of, nor does the plaintiff in error contend that the court below abused its discretion in the matter.”
In Jordan v. State, 107 Fla. 333, 144 So. 669, 670 (1932), it was said “It is only permitted to interrogate witnesses as to previous convictions, not mere former arrests, or accusations, for crime.
Here, the defendants were not denied the right to confront and cross-examine witness Cuff, only the specific question related herein was excluded. During the proffer, the witness denied expecting any leniency, and denied that any promises of leniency had been made to him.
No abuse of discretion has been made, or shown, and no constitutional rights of these defendants appear to have been violated by the exclusion of this question to the witness, Cuff. The judgments are, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1976)…te, supra, because the statute speaks exclusively in terms of “convictions.” The State contends that the issue should be left to the “sound discretion” of the trial court, citing Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713 (1899) and Dennis v. State, 214 So. 2d 661 (Fla.App. 3rd 1968). See also State v. Ralls, 213 Kan. 249, 515 P. 2d 1205; State v. Hozer, 19 N.J. 301, 116 A. 2d 193, 199 (1955). In Wallace this Court stated: [Cjross-examination of a witness as to indictments or charges before conviction agains…
-
Palmer v. State, 264 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…y in the trial. On an appeal from the conviction, filed by Palmer and Dennis, no question regarding the evaluation matter was presented as a ground for reversal. The judgment was affirmed by this court. See Dennis and Palmer v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 661. Petitions of the defendant for review thereof by certiorari were denied by the Supreme Court of Florida (225 So. 2d 525), and by the United States Supreme Court (393 U.S. 1070, 89 S.Ct. 729, 21 L.Ed.2d 714). A subsequent motion of the defendant fo…
-
Palmer v. State, 273 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…der denying his second post-trial motion for relief under Rule 3.850 CrPR. On a direct appeal taken by the defendant from the judgment entered on the con [*136] viction of January 1968, this court affirmed. Dennis and Palmer v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 661. Application to the United States Supreme Court for review thereof by certiorari was denied (393 U.S. 1070, 89 S.Ct. 729, 21 L.Ed.2d 714) A first motion for relief under Rule 3.850 CrPR was denied by the trial court, and no appeal was taken therefr…
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
- Wallace v. State, 26 So. 713 (Fla. 1899)
- Jordan v. State, 107 Fla. 333 (Fla. 1932)
- Belton v. State, 211 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)