Van-Reenene v. State
619 So. 2d 507, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6479, 1993 WL 205444
Opinion
Under the circumstances, there was no reversible error in the prosecutor’s cross-examination concerning the failure of the defendant to secure a witness who might substantiate his claimed defense. See Miller v. State, 582 So.2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and cases cited therein; see also, State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
As the State concedes, the judgment as to count XIII should be amended to reflect the jury’s finding that the defendant was [508]*508guilty of petit theft rather than grand theft.
Affirmed as modified.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Van-Reenene v. State, 619 So. 2d 507, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6479, 1993 WL 205444 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).
619 So. 2d 507 (Van-Reenene v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. DiGuilio
491 So. 2d 1129 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Miller v. State
582 So. 2d 85 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)