Whitfield v. State
549 So. 2d 1202, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2447, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5794, 1989 WL 120860
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 17, 1989·No. No. 88-1398·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
In a criminal prosecution, it is improper cross examination to ask a witness if another witness (who had previously testified) “was lying.” Boatwright v. State, 452 So.2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We therefore reverse the conviction under review and remand to the trial court for a new trial.1
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Whitfield v. State, 549 So. 2d 1202, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2447, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5794, 1989 WL 120860 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).
549 So. 2d 1202 (Whitfield v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Anthony B. wilson v. Department of Corrections
477 F. App'x 715 (Eleventh Circuit, 2012)
Wilson v. State
880 So. 2d 1287 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Toomer v. State
599 So. 2d 780 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Duarte v. State
598 So. 2d 270 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)