From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richardson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
May 10, 1990
561 So. 2d 18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

No. 89-651.

May 10, 1990.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Orange County, Ted P. Coleman, J.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Daniel J. Schafer, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Dee R. Ball, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


Howard Richardson appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated battery. He contends the trial court erred in not permitting him to cross-examine the victim about drug use prior to the day of the shooting. We disagree and affirm.

Although evidence was proffered that the victim had previously used rock cocaine, there was no direct evidence that he had used any drugs on the day of the incident or that his mind was impaired because of previous drug use. Evidence of drug use is inadmissible unless: (a) it can be shown that the witness had been using drugs at or about the time of the incident, or (b) at or about the time of the testimony, or (c) that prior drug use has affected the witness's ability to observe, remember and recount. Edwards v. State, 548 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1989).

AFFIRMED.

DANIEL, C.J., and SHARP, W., J., concur.


Summaries of

Richardson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
May 10, 1990
561 So. 2d 18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Richardson v. State

Case Details

Full title:HOWARD RICHARDSON, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: May 10, 1990

Citations

561 So. 2d 18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Nova v. State

In Edwards v. State, 548 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1989), the Florida Supreme Court held that evidence of drug use by a…

Johnson v. State

3. That her prior drug use would have affected her ability to observe, remember or recount. Thus, the…