SIDNEY CHARLES (MICKEY) GODWIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, who was convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced by the court on a charge of aggravated battery now seeks by this appeal to have said conviction and resulting sentence reversed, claiming that he was deprived of his right to cross-examine the victim who was called as a witness by the State because the trial judge sustained an objection to certain questions propounded on cross-examination to the witness when the witness asserted his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. This confrontation of two rights basic to American jurisprudence, the right of cross-examination versus the right against self-incrimination presents an issue novel to this jurisdiction. However, we find that the facts revealed by the record-on-appeal are not such as to render this case a vehicle for the resolution of that point. On the contrary, the record reveals that the appellant was not in any manner prejudiced by the rulings of the trial judge here urged as a basis for reversal. Accordingly, no prejudicial error having been demonstrated, the judgment and sentence here appealed are
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and BOYER and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eddy Hawkins v. State, 312 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…confidence in their government, particularly the judicial branch.” (302 So. 2d at page 150) We also touched upon the necessity for honesty and candor in State v. Shepard, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 299 So. 2d 644. (See also Lee v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 312 So. 2d 457. Although T agree that the State’s error in the case sub judice was harmless, and therefore does not constitute ground for reversal, the concealment, evasion and lack of candor revealed by this record can hardly be viewed as a source of pride to th…
-
Application of Special Transp. Serv., Inc., 45 Fla. Supp. 3 (Fla. P.S.C. 1976)…Columbia County. Transportation within a municipality and its suburban territory had been considered exempt from regulation by the commission until the Florida Supreme Court decision in Petroleum Carrier Corporation v. Silco Petroleum Carrier, Inc., 312 So. 2d 457 (Fla. App.), certiorari denied on March 1, 1976, in Case No. 47,833, rehearing denied on March 30, 1976. The operations of the applicant within the formerly exempt zone can be separated from the service it provides beyond; moreover, it is our judgme…