THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION AND THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN M. HAESE AND REBECCA W. HAESE, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION AND THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
JOHN M. HAESE AND REBECCA W. HAESE, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
649 So. 2d 908
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1995)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Reversed based on the authority of Wyatt v. Haese 649 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
DELL, C.J., and HERSEY and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 726 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…a defendant has failed to call a witness are cause for reversal because, at least in part, they may lead the jury to believe that the defendant has the burden of proving his innocence. See Jackson v. State, 575 So. 2d 181 (Fla.1991); Bates v. State, 649 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Courts recognize exceptions to this rule where a defendant asserts defenses such as alibi, self-defense, defense of others, or relies on facts that could be elicited from a witness who is not equally available to the state. See…1 / 2
-
Neville Jones v. State, 653 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ur supreme court in Jackson clarified the principle involved in the present case, there is still judicial disagreement as to precisely when the prosecutor may comment. See, e.g. Lawyer v. State, 627 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) and Bates v. State, 649 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We thus repeat the suggestion that we made in Lawyer, which is that a prosecutor should obtain a ruling from the trial court before commenting on a defendant’s failure to call a witness. That would give the court an opportunity…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 683 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…estion posed by the prosecutor constitutes reversible error. We do think, however, that the question was improper and caution the trial court not to allow the state to pose such a question to Rodriguez if he testifies on retrial. See Bates v. State, 649 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (comments by prosecutor in closing argument which refer to defendant’s failure to call a witness generally are reversible error in light of possibility that the comments could lead the jury to believe that the defendant had the b…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wyatt v. Haese, 649 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)