Ruano v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ruano v. State

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 2, 2010

Docket3D08-2772

StatusPublished

This text of 35 So. 3d 1031 (Ruano 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 So. 3d 1031, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7605, 2010 WL 2178823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruano-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack