MACK SIMMONS, PETITIONER,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
  …r the inquiry into Woods’s rule violation. Defense counsel declined the court’s offer to allow examination of other state witnesses concerning what testimony they had overheard and whether it influenced them. Appellant contends that Dumas v. State, 350 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1977), applies and requires a new trial. There the trial court refused to allow a defense witness to testify, on the ground that he had remained in the courtroom in violation of the rule. This Court pointed out that the rule is intended to prev…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Burr v. State, 466 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1985)
  …shown that Ms. Footman’s testimony was not substantially different from what it would have been had she not heard Ms. Williams' testimony, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing her to testify. Steinhorst v. State; Dumas v. State, 350 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1977). With respect to his sentence, appellant claims that the trial judge erred in finding that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding a lawful arrest and in finding that it was committed in a cold, calculated and premeditated m…
• Patterson v. State, 419 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
  …sanction to enforce discovery rules or orders against criminal defendants.” United States v. Davis, 639 F. 2d 239, 243 (5th Cir. 1981); see also Lewis v. State, 411 So. 2d 880, 882-83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (Baskin, J., dissenting); cf. Dumas v. State, 350 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1977) (because of the sixth amendment, a witness can be excluded for violating the sequestration rule only if the witness acted with the knowledge, consent, procurement, or connivance of the defendant or defense counsel). While, in the present…