SAINER CONSTRUCTORS, INC. AND FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, APPELLANTS,

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Fidel Romero v. State, 435 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
  …reversible error. See Kirk v. State, 227 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Michaels v. State, 429 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). On the other hand, where there is ample evidence of guilt, circumstances may render such an error harmless. Lane v. State, 352 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 362 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1978); Arline v. State, 303 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). In addition to the harmless error doctrine, certain exceptions have been engrafted onto the rule by the cases. Our research indicates…
• Kindell v. State, 413 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
  …e witnesses are both available and competent.4 Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 14 S.Ct. 40, 37 L.Ed. 1021 (1893); United States v. Blakemore, 489 F. 2d 193 (6th Cir. 1973); Gass v. United States, 416 F. 2d 767 (D.C.Cir.1969) 5; Lane v. State, 352 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (Rawls, J., dissenting).6 Compare Buckrem v. State, 355 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1978) (recognizing rule, but finding that comment was proper where witnesses, one of whom was defendant’s wife, were available and, in light of defendant’s s…
• Bayshore v. State, 437 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
  …s shown that the witnesses are peculiarly within the defendant’s power to produce and the testimony of the witnesses would elucidate the transaction, that is, that the witnesses are both available and competent.” Id. at 1288. See also Lane v. State, 352 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). . The same adverse inference may be shown if the defendant raises alibi as a defense and then fails to call alibi witnesses. Pena v. State, 432 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Jacobs v. State 389 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), r…

Authorities Cited

• Herman v. BOB Woschnik Constr., Inc., 336 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
• Midway Shopping Mall, Inc. v. Corky Corp., 257 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)