McKnight v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McKnight v. State

390 So. 2d 485, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17714

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 26, 1980·No. No. 80-147·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

REVERSED. Under the circumstances of this case, it is our view that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the appellant to establish on cross-examination that one of the prosecution’s principal witnesses was on probation. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 [486]*486U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). Accordingly, this cause is reversed for a new trial.

ANSTEAD, MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

REVERSED. Under the circumstances of this case, it is our view that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the appellant to establish on cross-examination that one of the prosecution’s principal witnesses was on probation. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 [486]*486U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). Accordingly, this cause is reversed for a new trial.

ANSTEAD, MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

McKnight v. State, 390 So. 2d 485, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17714 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

390 So. 2d 485 (McKnight v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related