Hill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hill v. State

501 So. 2d 164, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 372, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6465

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 27, 1987

DocketNo. 85-2156

StatusPublished

This text of 501 So. 2d 164 (Hill 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

Hill v. State, 501 So. 2d 164, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 372, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6465 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Roosevelt Hill challenges his convictions, raising two issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial court erred in limiting his cross-examination of the state’s key witness in regard to an arrest in connection with the crime charged against appellant; and 2) whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal predicated on the state’s failure to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed premeditated murder. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The record discloses that the state’s key witness was not charged with a crime, that he received no grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, and that his testi[165]*165mony did not differ substantially from appellant’s testimony. We therefore find that the trial court’s limitation of cross-examination of the state’s witness constituted harmless error. Watts v. State, 450 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hannah v. State, 432 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). We find appellant’s other contention to be without merit. See Sireci v. State, 399 So.2d 964 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 984, 102 S.Ct. 2257, 72 L.Ed.2d 862 (1982).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Roosevelt Hill challenges his convictions, raising two issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial court erred in limiting his cross-examination of the state’s key witness in regard to an arrest in connection with the crime charged against appellant; and 2) whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal predicated on the state’s failure to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed premeditated murder. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The record discloses that the state’s key witness was not charged with a crime, that he received no grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, and that his testi[165]*165mony did not differ substantially from appellant’s testimony. We therefore find that the trial court’s limitation of cross-examination of the state’s witness constituted harmless error. Watts v. State, 450 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hannah v. State, 432 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). We find appellant’s other contention to be without merit. See Sireci v. State, 399 So.2d 964 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 984, 102 S.Ct. 2257, 72 L.Ed.2d 862 (1982).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 So. 2d 164, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 372, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack