Sloan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sloan v. State

427 So. 2d 808, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20823

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 9, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1480

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 427 So. 2d 808 (Sloan 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

Sloan v. State, 427 So. 2d 808, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20823 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record it appears that error was committed when the trial court restricted Sloan’s cross examination of the complaining witness regarding charges by the State pending against the witness. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Bailey v. State, 411 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (Hurley, J., specially concurring); Lee v. State, 318 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Moreno v. State, 418 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). However, in reviewing the quantum and quality of the proofs against Sloan we are content that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981); Bailey v. State, supra. But see Moreno v. State, supra.¹

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record it appears that error was committed when the trial court restricted Sloan’s cross examination of the complaining witness regarding charges by the State pending against the witness. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Bailey v. State, 411 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (Hurley, J., specially concurring); Lee v. State, 318 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Moreno v. State, 418 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). However, in reviewing the quantum and quality of the proofs against Sloan we are content that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981); Bailey v. State, supra. But see Moreno v. State, supra.¹

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 So. 2d 808, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloan-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack