Trimming v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Trimming v. State

253 So. 2d 720

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 26, 1971·No. No. 71-592·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury and adjudicated guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit: Grand Larceny. On this appeal it is urged that the trial court erred in allowing a rebuttal witness to testify over appellant’s objection. The rebuttal witness was properly called to rebut by prior, inconsistent statements the testimony of the appellant given in his own behalf. Barkley v. State, 152 Fla. 147, 10 So.2d 922 (1942).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury and adjudicated guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit: Grand Larceny. On this appeal it is urged that the trial court erred in allowing a rebuttal witness to testify over appellant’s objection. The rebuttal witness was properly called to rebut by prior, inconsistent statements the testimony of the appellant given in his own behalf. Barkley v. State, 152 Fla. 147, 10 So.2d 922 (1942).

Affirmed.

Trimming v. State, 253 So. 2d 720 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

253 So. 2d 720 (Trimming v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related