CHARLES DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that denying a defendant the right to closing argument when a witness benefits all co-defendants constitutes reversible error.
Appellant was tried for crime against nature, consolidated with co-defendants. A witness listed by the state was called by a co-defendant, and the tri…
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 Right To Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals a judgment and sentence for two counts of crime against nature.
Appellant’s case was consolidated for trial with two other defendants, each defendant having independent counsel. Preceding the trial appellee had furnished appellant with reciprocal witness lists in which a certain medical doctor was listed as a State’s witness. During the trial the State elected not to call said witness to the stand.
However, the medical doctor was called as a witness for and on behalf of one of appellant’s co-defendants. Over appellant’s objection, appellee was given the right to have opening and closing arguments. The trial court held that because the testimony of this witness was of benefit to all the defendants, said defendants lost their right to opening and closing arguments as provided in Fla.Stat. § 918.09, 1969 F.S.A. (now Cr.P.R. 1.250, 33 F.S.A.).
Appellant argues and we agree that the court committed reversible error in denying appellant the right to closing argument. Faulk v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 519.
The trial court’s judgment with reference to appellant Davis is reversed and remanded for new trial.
PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raysor v. State, 272 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…is as guilty as sin itself. (Emphasis supplied.) “We are therefore compelled to the conclusion that the denial of this right to the appellant was a substantial prejudicial error which requires a new trial.” See also Davis v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 256 So. 2d 22; Cagnina v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 577, and Wyatt v. State, Fla. App.1972, 270 So. 2d 47. In further extension, we are at a loss as a practical matter to know just how any criminal defendant could in fact make a demonstration of error becau…
-
Narron v. Eggers, 263 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1972)…s, background and the question involved are set forth in the [*214] decision of the District Court reported at 254 So. 2d 382 (4th D.C.A. Fla.1971). For the order certifying the question as requested in Rupp v. Jackson, 238 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1970), see 256 So. 2d 22. We have reviewed the decision below, the record in the cause, the briefs of counsel, and' have heard oral argument. It is our judgment that the decision of the District Court appropriately disposes of the issue raised. See also, Adkins, Florida Cr…
-
Eggers v. Narron, 260 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 254 So. 2d 382; 256 So. 2d 22. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jewell Faulk v. State, 104 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1958)