Garvey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Garvey v. State

754 So. 2d 130, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3407, 2000 WL 293831

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-2179

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 754 So. 2d 130 (Garvey 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

Garvey v. State, 754 So. 2d 130, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3407, 2000 WL 293831 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The conviction below for aggravated battery with a knife is reversed for a new trial because the prosecutor improperly asked the defendant on cross-examination whether it was “true that you also have cut [another person] with a knife.” See Harris v. State, 427 So.2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Ruiz v. State, 395 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 407 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1981); Donaldson v. State, 369 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Cornatezer v. State, 736 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Cooper v. State, 659 So.2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Freeman v. State, 630 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We reject the state’s arguments that only harmless error was involved and that the impropriety could be negated by a curative instruction. Harris, 427 So.2d at 234; Ruiz, 395 So.2d at 566.

Reversed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The conviction below for aggravated battery with a knife is reversed for a new trial because the prosecutor improperly asked the defendant on cross-examination whether it was “true that you also have cut [another person] with a knife.” See Harris v. State, 427 So.2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Ruiz v. State, 395 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 407 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1981); Donaldson v. State, 369 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Cornatezer v. State, 736 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Cooper v. State, 659 So.2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Freeman v. State, 630 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We reject the state’s arguments that only harmless error was involved and that the impropriety could be negated by a curative instruction. Harris, 427 So.2d at 234; Ruiz, 395 So.2d at 566.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

754 So. 2d 130, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3407, 2000 WL 293831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garvey-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack