Boshears v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Boshears v. State

371 So. 2d 725, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15265

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 15, 1979

DocketNo. LL-311

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 371 So. 2d 725 (Boshears v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boshears v. State, 371 So. 2d 725, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15265 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment against appellant for sexual battery of a child under the age of eleven years, finding his two substantive points to be without merit. First, the trial court did not err in failing to grant a mistrial simply because two of the potential jury members stated in voir dire that they had been rape victims. Stevens v. State, 251 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Second, the court did not err in restricting certain discovery and cross-examination of the victim because there was no showing that the excluded matter had any relevance to the disputed issues in the trial or to the victim’s credibility. Contrast Jenkins v. State, 349 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Lombardi v. State, 358 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

There was error, however, in the court’s failure to specify appellant’s jail-time credit in the sentence. Randall v. State, 352 So.2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, we remand for that correction but appellant need not be present at that time.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Acting C. J., and ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment against appellant for sexual battery of a child under the age of eleven years, finding his two substantive points to be without merit. First, the trial court did not err in failing to grant a mistrial simply because two of the potential jury members stated in voir dire that they had been rape victims. Stevens v. State, 251 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Second, the court did not err in restricting certain discovery and cross-examination of the victim because there was no showing that the excluded matter had any relevance to the disputed issues in the trial or to the victim’s credibility. Contrast Jenkins v. State, 349 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Lombardi v. State, 358 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

There was error, however, in the court’s failure to specify appellant’s jail-time credit in the sentence. Randall v. State, 352 So.2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, we remand for that correction but appellant need not be present at that time.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Acting C. J., and ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 So. 2d 725, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boshears-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack