Dixon v. State
76 So. 3d 358, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20222, 2011 WL 6322526
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 19, 2011·No. 1D10-4213·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
AFFIRMED. See Rowland v. State, 680 So.2d 502, 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (rejecting Rowland’s argument that his right to present a defense was unduly hampered when the trial court excluded evidence of an instance of sexual activity *359 on the part of the child witness with another child, stating: “We do not disturb the trial judge’s ruling that the evidence was irrelevant.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dixon v. State, 76 So. 3d 358, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20222, 2011 WL 6322526 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).
76 So. 3d 358 (Dixon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sutton v. State
90 So. 3d 885 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)