JAMES ROOSEVELT GORDON, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error by restricting the defendant's cross-examination of state witnesses, as the rulings were discretionary and did not deny constitutional rights.
The defendant was convicted of breaking and entering a motor vehicle. He appealed, arguing the trial court improperly restricted his cross-examination…
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 Florida Constitution Article I, Section 16 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant in the trial court appeals a jury conviction for the crime of breaking and entering or entering without breaking a motor vehicle in violation of Fla.Stat. § 810.051, F.S.A. His sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred by restraining his cross-examination of the state’s witnesses, thereby depriving him of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution.
We have read the testimony contained in the record on appeal, and reviewed the alleged errors about which the defendant complains, and find no reversible error. The main complaint made by the defendant is the restriction which the court placed upon the defendant in his cross-examination of a co-defendant Terry Garrett.
Defendant clearly managed to establish before the jury that Garrett had been charged along with the defendant for the crime involved in this case.
When the defendant through counsel attempted to elicit whether or not the State had granted immunity to Garrett, the witness responded that he didn’t know, and the court sustained objections to counsel’s repeated inquiry on that question.
In our view, the trial court’s rulings were discretionary, and the appellant has not shown such a clear abuse which resulted in a denial of his constitutional right of confrontation or of fair cross-examination. Matera v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 218 So. 2d 180; Robertson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 304.
The other errors which appellant claims the court committed also have been carefully considered, and we find that these rulings likewise were - discretionary and limited the trial testimony to that which was relevant and material. See Morrell v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 297 So. 2d 579.
For the reasons stated, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fayerweather v. State, 332 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1976)…ard law and another state law, he may be charged and convicted under either provision but may be sentenced only as prescribed in the credit card act. The court reiterated this view in a companion case, Strada, and in the later case, Gordon v. State, 312 So. 2d 809 (Fla.App. 4th 1975). In State v. McCurdy, supra, the Second District Court of Appeal interpreted Section 817.68 to require irreconcilable conflict between the act and another law before “denying a clear field of operation to either, at the election…
-
Smith v. State, 383 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…rime Act and a criminal statute of more general applicability may be punished under either statute even though the general statute imposes a more severe punishment. [We note that the Supreme. Court, at page 22, refers to the case of Gordon v. State, 312 So. 2d 809 (Fla.App. 4th 1975). This was undoubtedly intended to be a reference to Pastoria v. State, 312 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).] In Fayerweather the Supreme Court summarized the policy considerations which lead to the conclusion "epitomized by that…
-
Williams v. State, 335 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Gordon v. State, 312 So. 2d 809 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Matera v. State, 218 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Morrell v. State, 297 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Robertson v. State, 245 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)