Fulton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fulton v. State

318 So. 2d 511, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15216

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 12, 1975·No. No. 74-978·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Upon a review of the record on appeal and after due consideration of the briefs we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. In particular, allowing the State to cross-examine a witness for the defendant with respect to criminal charges pending against that witness was at the most harmless error under the particular circumstances of this case. See Dennis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 661; Herzig v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 900; Morrell v. State, Fla.App.1974, 297 So.2d 579; cf. State v. Ramos, 1972, 108 Ariz. 36, 492 P.2d 697.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur. DOWNEY, J., dissents, with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon a review of the record on appeal and after due consideration of the briefs we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. In particular, allowing the State to cross-examine a witness for the defendant with respect to criminal charges pending against that witness was at the most harmless error under the particular circumstances of this case. See Dennis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 661; Herzig v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 900; Morrell v. State, Fla.App.1974, 297 So.2d 579; cf. State v. Ramos, 1972, 108 Ariz. 36, 492 P.2d 697.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur. DOWNEY, J., dissents, with opinion.

Fulton v. State, 318 So. 2d 511, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15216 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

318 So. 2d 511 (Fulton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related