Garey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Garey v. State

432 So. 2d 796, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 27793

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 15, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1709

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 432 So. 2d 796 (Garey 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

Garey v. State, 432 So. 2d 796, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 27793 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue meriting discussion is the defendant’s contention that the trial court erroneously prevented the cross examination of a key witness concerning pending criminal charges. We reverse.

Several Florida decisions have held that a state’s witness may be cross examined on the basis of other pending criminal charges. Cowheard v. State, 365 So.2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied 374 So.2d 101 (Fla.1979); Blanco v. State, 353 So.2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Stripling v. State, 349 So.2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Lee v. State, 318 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Defense counsel here requested to make an inquiry with regard to pending charges against a key witness. Such impeachment is permitted to demonstrate the witness’s bias or motive. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

LETTS, C.J., and DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue meriting discussion is the defendant’s contention that the trial court erroneously prevented the cross examination of a key witness concerning pending criminal charges. We reverse.

Several Florida decisions have held that a state’s witness may be cross examined on the basis of other pending criminal charges. Cowheard v. State, 365 So.2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied 374 So.2d 101 (Fla.1979); Blanco v. State, 353 So.2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Stripling v. State, 349 So.2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Lee v. State, 318 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Defense counsel here requested to make an inquiry with regard to pending charges against a key witness. Such impeachment is permitted to demonstrate the witness’s bias or motive. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

LETTS, C.J., and DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 So. 2d 796, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 27793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garey-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack