FRANCES REBECCA NASH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule Of Sequestration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court, in a criminal prosecution, excluded a prospective defense witness for violation of the rule of sequestration1 without complying with the procedures and principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Florida in Dumas v. State, 350 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1977).2
Therefore, the conviction must be reversed, with directions to grant the appellant a new trial.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
. The penalty for violation of the sequestration rule in criminal cases is different from that in civil cases, because of the constitutional right of an accused to present witnesses in his defense. (Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.)
. It is noted that the trial court did not have the benefit of this opinion at the time he made his ruling.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1982)…ne 16, 1981) (Ervin, J., specially concurring) (employee as additional insured permissive operator of fleet vehicle must be considered bound by rejection of uninsured motorist coverage by insured employer); Mattingly v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 363 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 370 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1979) (selection of lower amounts by automobile manufacturer as named insured covers lessees of motor vehicles); Glover v. Aetna Insurance Co., 363 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (rejection of un…
-
Maxwell v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 399 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…90 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. den., 200 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1967); Continental Ins. Co. v. Roth, 388 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Morpurgo v. Greyhound Rent-A-Car, Inc., 339 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Mattingly v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In Mattingly, the Fourth District Court of Appeal specifically stated that the lessee of an automobile was afforded UM coverage in such amounts selected by the lessor, “which, as the named insured, was the only party privileged…
-
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Williams, 375 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…coverage under the terms of the policy or under Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1977). See generally Kohly v. Royal Indemnity Co., 190 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); cert. denied, 200 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1967); Mattingly v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). On the second point, however, the manifest weight of the evidence in the record shows that the “named insured,” Beatrice Griffin, was a member of the same household as appellee’s decedent Barbara Young at the time of Young’s de…
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
- Simmons v. State, 350 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1977)
- Dumas v. State, 350 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1977)