Cunningham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cunningham v. State

718 So. 2d 332, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11844, 1998 WL 637381

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 18, 1998

DocketNo. 97-3315

StatusPublished

This text of 718 So. 2d 332 (Cunningham 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

Cunningham v. State, 718 So. 2d 332, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11844, 1998 WL 637381 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.

Appealing from his conviction of attempted voluntary manslaughter of his estranged wife and other charges, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude testimony that the crime was committed in the presence of his children. We disagree and affirm.

The presence of the children was relevant to the incident and tended to explain, in part, appellant’s presence at the place when the incident occurred. Broad discretion rests with the trial court to determine whether the probative value of evidence sought to be admitted is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and a trial court’s decision to admit the evidence will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Collier v. State, 681 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We find no abuse of discretion here.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

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

ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.

Appealing from his conviction of attempted voluntary manslaughter of his estranged wife and other charges, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude testimony that the crime was committed in the presence of his children. We disagree and affirm.

The presence of the children was relevant to the incident and tended to explain, in part, appellant’s presence at the place when the incident occurred. Broad discretion rests with the trial court to determine whether the probative value of evidence sought to be admitted is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and a trial court’s decision to admit the evidence will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Collier v. State, 681 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We find no abuse of discretion here.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

718 So. 2d 332, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11844, 1998 WL 637381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack