Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

DANIEL HURST, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

WARNER, J.

At appellant's trial for attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, the trial court refused to permit defense counsel to re-cross a witness. Whether to allow re-cross-examination is subject to the trial court's broad discretion over the admission of evidence. See Sullivan v. State, 751 So.2d 128, 130 (Fla.2d DCA 2000). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing re-cross in this case, where the prosecutor did not bring out any new matter on re-direct, but only a detail which had been addressed in cross-examination. See U.S. v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1517-18 (11th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Morris, 485 F.2d 1385, 1387 (5th Cir. 1973).

Affirmed.

GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HURST v. STATE
(Sep 11, 2002)