Ray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ray v. State

262 So. 2d 475, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6768

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 23, 1972

DocketNo. 71-1359

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 So. 2d 475 (Ray 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

Ray v. State, 262 So. 2d 475, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6768 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On appeal from conviction of robbery, the appellant contends that the trial court committed error by improperly restricting his cross-examination of certain witnesses presented by the state, and by ruling that two certain witnesses offered by the appellant-defendant would not be permitted to testify. Upon consideration of the record and briefs we hold those contentions are without merit in this case. The questions on cross-examination, objections to which by the state were sustained, properly were regarded by the court to relate to matters that appeared to be immaterial. The ruling respecting the witnesses who were not permitted to testify was not an abuse of discretion, as to one of them because of noncompliance with the court’s rule for prior disclosure of intent to call him, and as to the other for being in violation of the rule, imposed at the trial, for the witnesses to remain out of the courtroom.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On appeal from conviction of robbery, the appellant contends that the trial court committed error by improperly restricting his cross-examination of certain witnesses presented by the state, and by ruling that two certain witnesses offered by the appellant-defendant would not be permitted to testify. Upon consideration of the record and briefs we hold those contentions are without merit in this case. The questions on cross-examination, objections to which by the state were sustained, properly were regarded by the court to relate to matters that appeared to be immaterial. The ruling respecting the witnesses who were not permitted to testify was not an abuse of discretion, as to one of them because of noncompliance with the court’s rule for prior disclosure of intent to call him, and as to the other for being in violation of the rule, imposed at the trial, for the witnesses to remain out of the courtroom.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 So. 2d 475, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack