Ruano v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ruano v. State

35 So. 3d 1031, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7605, 2010 WL 2178823

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 2, 2010·No. 3D08-2772·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

While appellant Cesar Ruano argues on appeal that the prosecution improperly asked him on cross-examination whether another witness was lying, of., Knowles v. State, 632 So.2d 62, 65-66 (Fla.1993), the objection at trial was on the basis of “form” and “argumentative.” Because the defense failed to object on the basis that the prosecutor improperly asked Ruano whether he thought that a witness was lying, the issue was not preserved for appeal.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

While appellant Cesar Ruano argues on appeal that the prosecution improperly asked him on cross-examination whether another witness was lying, of., Knowles v. State, 632 So.2d 62, 65-66 (Fla.1993), the objection at trial was on the basis of “form” and “argumentative.” Because the defense failed to object on the basis that the prosecutor improperly asked Ruano whether he thought that a witness was lying, the issue was not preserved for appeal.

Affirmed.

Ruano v. State, 35 So. 3d 1031, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7605, 2010 WL 2178823 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

35 So. 3d 1031 (Ruano v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related