Makranczy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Makranczy v. State

150 So. 3d 287, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18959, 2014 WL 6478643

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 20, 2014

DocketNo. 1D12-4410

StatusPublished

This text of 150 So. 3d 287 (Makranczy 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

Makranczy v. State, 150 So. 3d 287, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18959, 2014 WL 6478643 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, J.

Appellant challenges his convictions, and sentences for aggravated battery and criminal mischief. He raises a number of [288]*288issues, only one of which we need to address because it is dispositive. We determine the trial court reversibly erred in limiting cross-examination of the victim concerning his consultation with an attorney in contemplation of a civil suit. See Wooten v. State, 464 So.2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finding that it is reversible error to prohibit cross-examination of an alleged victim in a criminal case on the subject of whether the victim had hired an attorney to file a law suit on his behalf against the defendant even when a civil action is merely contemplated). We also cannot say the error was harmless based on the facts of this case.

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

ROWE and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

WOLF, J.

Appellant challenges his convictions, and sentences for aggravated battery and criminal mischief. He raises a number of [288]*288issues, only one of which we need to address because it is dispositive. We determine the trial court reversibly erred in limiting cross-examination of the victim concerning his consultation with an attorney in contemplation of a civil suit. See Wooten v. State, 464 So.2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finding that it is reversible error to prohibit cross-examination of an alleged victim in a criminal case on the subject of whether the victim had hired an attorney to file a law suit on his behalf against the defendant even when a civil action is merely contemplated). We also cannot say the error was harmless based on the facts of this case.

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

ROWE and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 3d 287, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18959, 2014 WL 6478643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/makranczy-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack