Lambert v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lambert v. State

560 So. 2d 346, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2871, 1990 WL 51698

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 1990

DocketNo. 89-970

StatusPublished

This text of 560 So. 2d 346 (Lambert 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

Lambert v. State, 560 So. 2d 346, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2871, 1990 WL 51698 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, Judge.

Michael A. Lambert appeals his conviction of battery of a law enforcement officer. He contends the trial court erred in refusing to exclude a witness during opening statements after the rule of sequestration had been invoked. We disagree and affirm.

Lambert contends that Officer Baker, the State’s first witness, sat in during opening statements and changed his testimony in order to refute the defense of intoxication first raised in defense opening statement. While Officer Baker did sit in during opening statements, the record does not indicate any change in his testimony. Although the testimony of the State’s second witness, Officer Roy, differed somewhat from his previous deposition testimony (not at all unusual after the passage of time), he did not sit in on the opening statements.

It is within the discretion of the trial judge to invoke the rule of sequestration after opening statements. See Sise v. State, 188 So.2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) cert. denied, 196 So.2d 922 (Fla.1967). In any event no prejudice resulted in this case since the evidence clearly shows that Officer Baker was aware of the potential intoxication defense before opening statements.

AFFIRMED.

DANIEL, C.J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.

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

HARRIS, Judge.

Michael A. Lambert appeals his conviction of battery of a law enforcement officer. He contends the trial court erred in refusing to exclude a witness during opening statements after the rule of sequestration had been invoked. We disagree and affirm.

Lambert contends that Officer Baker, the State’s first witness, sat in during opening statements and changed his testimony in order to refute the defense of intoxication first raised in defense opening statement. While Officer Baker did sit in during opening statements, the record does not indicate any change in his testimony. Although the testimony of the State’s second witness, Officer Roy, differed somewhat from his previous deposition testimony (not at all unusual after the passage of time), he did not sit in on the opening statements.

It is within the discretion of the trial judge to invoke the rule of sequestration after opening statements. See Sise v. State, 188 So.2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) cert. denied, 196 So.2d 922 (Fla.1967). In any event no prejudice resulted in this case since the evidence clearly shows that Officer Baker was aware of the potential intoxication defense before opening statements.

AFFIRMED.

DANIEL, C.J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

560 So. 2d 346, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2871, 1990 WL 51698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lambert-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack