Paul v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Paul v. State

574 So. 2d 1194, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1018, 1991 WL 16186

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 1991

DocketNo. 89-1446

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 574 So. 2d 1194 (Paul 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

Paul v. State, 574 So. 2d 1194, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1018, 1991 WL 16186 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

JORGENSON, Judge.

We grant the state’s motion for rehearing, withdraw the opinion previously issued in this case, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Charles Paul appeals from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for second-degree murder with a firearm. We affirm.

On appeal, Paul contends that the trial court impermissibly thwarted his cross-examination of an adverse witness and denied him his constitutional right to confront that witness. We disagree. The statements Paul sought to elicit went beyond the scope of direct examination and would have tended to bolster his defense theory. As the theory was a defensive matter, Paul should have developed it by calling his own witness. See Penn v. State, 574 So.2d 1079 (Fla.1991); Steinkorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982). Because we hold that the trial court properly restricted cross-examination under Penn, we do not reach the state’s alternative rationale for excluding the testimony, namely that the statement sought to be elicited was rank hearsay that did not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

As to Paul’s remaining points on appeal, we find no merit.

Affirmed.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

JORGENSON, Judge.

We grant the state’s motion for rehearing, withdraw the opinion previously issued in this case, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Charles Paul appeals from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for second-degree murder with a firearm. We affirm.

On appeal, Paul contends that the trial court impermissibly thwarted his cross-examination of an adverse witness and denied him his constitutional right to confront that witness. We disagree. The statements Paul sought to elicit went beyond the scope of direct examination and would have tended to bolster his defense theory. As the theory was a defensive matter, Paul should have developed it by calling his own witness. See Penn v. State, 574 So.2d 1079 (Fla.1991); Steinkorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982). Because we hold that the trial court properly restricted cross-examination under Penn, we do not reach the state’s alternative rationale for excluding the testimony, namely that the statement sought to be elicited was rank hearsay that did not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

As to Paul’s remaining points on appeal, we find no merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

574 So. 2d 1194, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1018, 1991 WL 16186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack