Turben v. State
884 So. 2d 1157, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 16081, 2004 WL 2402464
Opinions
In this appeal Candy Ann Turben contends she was set up by the prosecutor to answer a question in such a manner as to allow the introduction of evidence not otherwise admissible against her. She asserts that the question asked, when considered in the context of the interrogation on cross examination, should have been viewed differently by the trial judge. This was a discretionary call with which we will not interfere.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Turben v. State, 884 So. 2d 1157, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 16081, 2004 WL 2402464 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).
884 So. 2d 1157 (Turben v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Fiddemon v. State
858 So. 2d 1100 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Bozeman v. State
698 So. 2d 629 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
McCoy v. State
853 So. 2d 396 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Castro v. State
547 So. 2d 111 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1989)
Winner v. Sharp
43 So. 2d 634 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1949)