ROGER LEE ROLLINS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Witness Sequestration cases and more on FLexlaw
On this direct appeal from conviction for robbery, appellant urges as his sole point for reversal that the trial court erred in permitting two state’s witnesses to testify after it was shown that they had violated the court’s order for sequestration of witnesses.
When it comes to the court’s attention that a witness has violated the sequestration rule, the determination of whether that witness will thereafter be permitted to testify is within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. Rowe v. State, 1935, 120 Fla. 649, 163 So. 22. The record discloses that before the court permitted these witnesses to testify, they were first examined upon voir dire, following which the court made a determination that the violation was unintentional and did not substantially affect the ability of the identifying witness to make an in-court identification of the defendant. We conclude from an examination of the briefs and record that appellant has not shown that the court abused its discretion in the instant case.
The judgment is affirmed.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Odom v. State, 403 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1981)…g the defendant rather than impeaching the witness. Assuming, however, that there was a violation of the rule, the question that then arose before the court below was how to remedy it. This was a matter for the court’s discretion. Rollins v. State, 256 So. 2d 541 (Fla.4th DCA 1972). The court made an inquiry into the circumstances of the conversation and issued a ruling which we find to have been not only within the range of discretion, but eminently fair and reasonable. D. Appellant contends that the tria…
-
DEL Monte Banana Co. & Fed. Transp., Inc. v. Chacon, 466 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…d proceed with no further mention of the matter. If, on the other hand, the trial judge finds the rule has been violated, it is within his sound judicial discretion to determine how to remedy the violation. Odom, 403 So. 2d at 941; Rollins v. State, 256 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). See also Romano v. Palazzo, 83 Fla. 243, 91 So. 115 (1922). The remedy can range from not permitting the witness to testify at all to allowing cross-examination on the matter as bearing on the witness’s credibility. But see Stei…
-
Frierson v. State, 303 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…a.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 82; Baisden v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 194; Shif-rin v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 18; Lister v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So. 2d 238; Staten v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 697; Rollins v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 541; Skold v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 263 So. 2d 627; United States v. Cooper, 5th Cir. 1973, 472 F. 2d 64; § 924.-33, Fla.Stat.…
Authorities Cited
- Rowe v. State, 120 Fla. 649 (Fla. 1935)