Makranczy v. State

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

Opinion

WOLF, J.

Appellant challenges his convictions, and sentences for aggravated battery and criminal mischief. He raises a number of issues, 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.