From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hurst v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 11, 2002
825 So. 2d 517 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 4D00-1310

Opinion filed September 11, 2002

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Robert W. Lee, Judge; L.T. Case No. 98-21404 CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin W. Maserang, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Barbara A. Zappi, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.


At appellant's trial for attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, the trial court refused to permit defense counsel to re-cross a witness. Whether to allow re-cross-examination is subject to the trial court's broad discretion over the admission of evidence. See Sullivan v. State, 751 So.2d 128, 130 (Fla.2d DCA 2000). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing re-cross in this case, where the prosecutor did not bring out any new matter on re-direct, but only a detail which had been addressed in cross-examination. See U.S. v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1517-18 (11th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Morris, 485 F.2d 1385, 1387 (5th Cir. 1973).

Affirmed.

GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hurst v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 11, 2002
825 So. 2d 517 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

Hurst v. State

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL HURST, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Sep 11, 2002

Citations

825 So. 2d 517 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Tennyson v. State

Knight v. State, 919 So.2d 628, 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). It is not an abuse of discretion for a trial court to…

Sandoval v. State

“Whether to allow re-cross-examination is subject to the trial court's broad discretion over the admission of…