GUS DUNCOMB, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; MAURICE HOWARD, APPELLANT, 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.
Two appellants convicted of robbery challenge their convictions on grounds of insufficient evidence and improper limitations on cross-examination regarding the credibility of state witnesses. The appellate court affirmed both convictions, finding the evidence competent and substantial and the trial court's evidentiary rulings proper.
The trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination. The cross-examination allowed was sufficient to place before the jury the potential credibility issue. The evidence was competent and substantial, and questions of witness credibility were properly matters for the jury. Both convictions are affirmed.
[1] A jury's determination of witness credibility is a matter for the jury to decide.
[2] A trial court does not err by limiting cross-examination when the presented cross-examination sufficiently allows the jury to consider the relevant circumstances in deter…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The only value or materiality to the defendants of disclosing that the said state witnesses were interviewed in the presence of each other prior to trial, was that the credibility of those witnesses could be considered by the jury to have been lessened through the possibility that one may have been influenced (beyond his personal observation or recollection) by information supplied by another, during such joint interrogation.”
Establishes the limited relevance of joint witness interviews to credibility only, not to substantive proof.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Duncomb and Howard were charged by information with robbery. They were found guilty by jury and adjudged guilty by the trial court. Three s…
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 Cross-Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants and another were charged by information with the crime of robbery. Appellants were found guilty by a jury and *87were so adjudged by the court. They filed separate appeals. We permitted joint use of the record, and the appeals were argued together.
Appellant Duncomb challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, and contends the trial court erred by limiting certain attempted cross-examination. Appellant Howard raises the latter contention, and further argues that conflict in the testimony of two state witnesses with relation to a matter operated to cancel out the testimony of each thereto; and that the testimony of state witnesses on certain material elements of proof was unworthy of belief.
On consideration thereof in the light of the record and briefs we find such contentions of the appellants to be without merit. The contention of improperly curtailed cross-examination grew out of the circumstance that three persons presented as witnesses by the state at trial had been interviewed in the presence of each other by the state attorney prior to trial. After having brought' out that fact on cross-examination, the further questioning which it is claimed the court improperly rejected was in pursuit of a theory that such action by the state attorney was improper. The trial court committed no error there. The only value or materiality to the defendants of disclosing that the said state witnesses were interviewed in the presence of each other prior to trial, was that the credibility of those witnesses could be considered by the jury to have been lessened through the possibility that one' may have been influenced (beyond his personal observation or recollection) by information supplied by another, during such joint interrogation. However, the cross-examination which was presented relating thereto sufficiently placed the jury in a position to consider that circumstance in determining the credibility of the witnesses. As to the question of whether testimony of witnesses was unworthy of belief, that was a matter for the jury to determine. Our review of the evidence leaves us unpersuaded that there was not competent substantial evidence presented, sufficient to support the conviction and judgment.
The judgments in the two above styled appeals are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McD. v. State, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…next consider the defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly refused to allow inquiry into the substance of conversations which the three arresting officers had with the state attorney in the presence of each other. In Duncomb v. State, 237 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), this court held that curtailment of cross-examination on this issue is not improper since [t]he only value or materiality to the defendants of disclosing that the said state witnesses were interviewed in the presence of each oth…
-
Hair v. State, 428 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ut on cross-examination or otherwise so that the jury will be fully apprised as to the witness’ possible motive or self-interest with respect to the testimony he (or she) gives, (emphasis added). Id. at 604 and cases cited. Unlike Duncomb v. State, 237 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), in which cross-examination was sufficient to permit the jury to appraise the witness’s credibility on its own, the Hair jury was not made aware of the unusual circumstances occurring during Tanner’s cross-examination. We therefor…
-
Perez v. State, 557 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ing a curative instruction, rather than ordering a mistrial. Second, in the unusual circumstances of the present case, the trial court had discretion to limit the cross-examination under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987). cf. Duncomb v. State, 237 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (“the cross-examination which was presented ... sufficiently placed the jury in a position to consider ... the credibility of the witnesses”). Third, the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant. See Brown v. State, 42…
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