McKinney v. State

579 So. 2d 393, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4642, 1991 WL 82529
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 21, 1991
DocketNo. 90-1406
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 393 (McKinney 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
McKinney v. State, 579 So. 2d 393, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4642, 1991 WL 82529 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon this court’s review of the record and the state’s confession of error, we find it was error to have allowed the state, over objection, to ask two defense witnesses if another defense witness had lied. E.g., Boatwright v. State, 452 So.2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Because the case turned on the resolution of the competing credibility of the victim, who was the state’s crucial witness, versus the defense witnesses, the matter cannot be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

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

Related

Joseph v. State
868 So. 2d 5 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
579 So. 2d 393, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4642, 1991 WL 82529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinney-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.