CHARLES PAUL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1991-02-12
No. 89-1446
Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
574 So. 2d 1194 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Cross-Examination Scope Hearsay Exceptions Right To Confrontation Hearsay Rule

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cross-Examination Scope cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
JORGENSON, Judge.

JORGENSON, Judge.

We grant the state’s motion for rehearing, withdraw the opinion previously issued in this case, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Charles Paul appeals from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for second-degree murder with a firearm. We affirm.

On appeal, Paul contends that the trial court impermissibly thwarted his cross-examination of an adverse witness and denied him his constitutional right to confront that witness. We disagree. The statements Paul sought to elicit went beyond the scope of direct examination and would have tended to bolster his defense theory. As the theory was a defensive matter, Paul should have developed it by calling his own witness. See Penn v. State, 574 So. 2d 1079 (Fla.1991); Steinkorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1982). Because we hold that the trial court properly restricted cross-examination under Penn, we do not reach the state’s alternative rationale for excluding the testimony, namely that the statement sought to be elicited was rank hearsay that did not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

As to Paul’s remaining points on appeal, we find no merit.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Diaz v. State, 747 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
    …d have tended to bolster Penn’s theory of defense that he was too intoxicated by drugs to know what he was doing. This theory was clearly a defensive matter, and Penn could and should have developed it by calling his own witnesses.”); Paul v. State, 574 So. 2d 1194, 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(Proper for trial court to restrict defendant’s cross-examination that “went beyond the scope of direct examination and would have tended to bolster his defense theory. As the theory was a defensive matter, Paul should have d…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw