Lentini v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lentini v. State

231 So. 2d 275, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6923

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 3, 1970

DocketNo. 69-377

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 So. 2d 275 (Lentini 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

Lentini v. State, 231 So. 2d 275, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6923 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was found guilty of the sale of marijuana and sentenced to one year in the county jail. The proof was positive. On this appeal two procedural errors are urged.

[276]*276First, appellant urges that he was improperly limited in cross examination. A reference to the record does not support this contention. The two questions to which objections were sustained were far afield from the ordinary course of cross examination. No prejudice appears. Cf. Harris v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 670.

Second, appellant urges that the court erred in denying his motion made during the course of the trial for “any statements made by this witness, recorded, written or reduced to writing, since his direct examination.” We believe that counsel meant since the witness had given his ■ deposition on pretrial discovery. Appellant relies upon Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103 (1957), which is inapplicable to this situation. See United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 355, 89 S.Ct. 528, 21 L.Ed.2d 537, 545 (1968).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was found guilty of the sale of marijuana and sentenced to one year in the county jail. The proof was positive. On this appeal two procedural errors are urged.

[276]*276First, appellant urges that he was improperly limited in cross examination. A reference to the record does not support this contention. The two questions to which objections were sustained were far afield from the ordinary course of cross examination. No prejudice appears. Cf. Harris v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 670.

Second, appellant urges that the court erred in denying his motion made during the course of the trial for “any statements made by this witness, recorded, written or reduced to writing, since his direct examination.” We believe that counsel meant since the witness had given his ■ deposition on pretrial discovery. Appellant relies upon Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103 (1957), which is inapplicable to this situation. See United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 355, 89 S.Ct. 528, 21 L.Ed.2d 537, 545 (1968).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 So. 2d 275, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lentini-v-state-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack