Hood v. State
808 So. 2d 1257, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2341, 2002 WL 341119
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 6, 2002·No. No. 3D01-113·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinions
Because the defendant failed to proffer “the character of the evidence sought to be introduced,” we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing the defendant, to. reopen his case. See Jones v. State, 745 So.2d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
Affirmed.
GODERICH and GREEN, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hood v. State, 808 So. 2d 1257, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2341, 2002 WL 341119 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).
808 So. 2d 1257 (Hood v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Thomas v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
Gibson v. State
199 So. 3d 1063 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Bryant v. State
21 So. 3d 913 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)