BOBBY MARION FRANCIS, 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.
Bobby Marion Francis appeals his conviction for delivery of contraband, raising three trial errors: the trial judge's refusal to require production of a law enforcement agent's notes, limitation of cross-examination, and denial of a mistrial motion based on alleged improper prosecutorial comment. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error on any of the three grounds.
The court found no error in any of the three rulings. The judge properly refused to produce notes where the agent had already refreshed his memory outside the courtroom; any limitation on cross-examination, if it occurred, was within the trial judge's discretion; and any improper comment by the prosecution was justified as a response to defense counsel's remarks.
[1] A law enforcement agent's notes used to refresh memory are not required to be produced in court if the memory was refreshed prior to testifying and the notes are not pres…
[2] A trial judge has discretion to limit cross-examination, and such limitations will not constitute error if not clearly demonstrated by the record.
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“it was clear that the agent had refreshed his memory the night before he testified and did not have the notes in the courtroom. Therefore, no error has been made to appear in this ruling.”
Establishes that the trial court did not err in refusing to require production of notes when the agent had already refreshed his memory outside the courtroom.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrancis was prosecuted for delivery of contraband contrary to statute. A law enforcement agent testified at trial after refreshing his memory from not…
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 Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal questions the correctness of a trial judge’s ruling in a criminal prosecution relating to the delivery of contraband, contrary to statute.
The appellant has preserved three points on appeal: First, whether the trial court erred in refusing to require a law enforcement agent to produce his notes, from which he refreshed his memory. We find no error in this ruling, because it was clear that the agent had refreshed his memory the night before he testified and did not have the notes in the courtroom. Therefore, no error has been made to appear in this ruling. Williams v. State, 208 So. 2d 628 (Fla.3rd D.C.A. 1968); Allen v. State, 243 So. 2d 448 (Fla.1st D.C.A. 1971); Marshall v. State, 321 So. 2d 114 (Fla.1st D.C.A. 1975). Secondly, it is urged that the trial judge erred in limiting cross-examination. The record does not clearly show that the trial judge did any such thing. But, even if it did appear that he had limited cross-examination, it would have been within his discretion and, therefore, no error has been made to appear in this regard. Thomas v. State, 249 So. 2d 510 (Fla.3rd D.C.A. 1971), Smith v. State, 305 So. 2d 247 (Fla.3rd D.C.A. 1974). Lastly, that the trial court erred in denying a motion for mistrial made during the closing argument on the part of the State, allegedly because of improper comment. If the comment was improper, which we do not here find, it was justified in response to remarks by defense counsel, and, therefore, no error has been-made to appear, in this regard. Wingate v. State, 232 So. 2d 44 (Fla.3rd D.C.A. 1970); Gray v. State, 296 So. 2d 612 (Fla.3rd D.C.A. 1974); Lawson v. State, 304 So. 2d 522 (Fla.3rd D.C.A. 1974).
The verdict, adjudication of guilt, and sentence here under review be and the same are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glassman v. State, 377 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…d the remaining contentions raised by the defendant on this appeal and find them to be without merit. Resnick v. State, 287 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1973); State v. King, 282 So. 2d 162 (Fla.1973); Sanders v. State, 73 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1954); Francis v. State, 343 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); White v. State, 324 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Maycock v. State, 284 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Casso v. State, 182 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); § 775.011(2), Fla.Stat.…
-
Jones v. State, 355 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…s case, no error is shown as statements made by defense counsel in opening and closing arguments invited the prosecutor’s comments. See Whitney v. State, 132 So. 2d 599 (Fla.1961); Ricks v. State, 242 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Francis v. State, 343 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Affirmed.…
-
Clark v. State, 378 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ined and could not reasonably have been given the meaning attributed to it. . We, therefore, find no error on this point. See e. g., Whitney v. State, 132 So. 2d 599 (Fla.1961); Jones v. State, 355 So. 2d 198 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); and Francis v. State, 343 So. 2d 932 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). The remaining point relating to the general sentence imposed upon the two counts of which the defendant was found guilty would present reversible error under authority of Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1977); except for th…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wingate v. State, 232 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Thomas v. State, 249 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Lawson v. State, 304 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Gray v. State, 296 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Allen v. State, 243 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Sonny Marshall and Silvia P. Hanson v. State, 321 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- McNEIL v. State, 208 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Smith v. State, 305 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)