Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

312 So. 2d 809

Docket No. 74-40.

Gordon v. State

James Roosevelt GORDON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1975-05-20

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1980

3 state decisions

Relies on Matera v. State · 297 So. 2d 579 - Morrell v. State · 245 So. 2d 304 - Robertson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-05-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*810 Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Bennett Brummer, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Linda C. Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The defendant in the trial court appeals a jury conviction for the crime of breaking and entering or entering without breaking a motor vehicle in violation of Fla. Stat. § 810.051, F.S.A.

¶6His sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred by restraining his cross-examination of the state's witnesses, thereby depriving him of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution.

¶7We have read the testimony contained in the record on appeal, and reviewed the alleged errors about which the defendant complains, and find no reversible error.

¶8The main complaint made by the defendant is the restriction which the court placed upon the defendant in his cross-examination of a co-defendant Terry Garrett.

¶9Defendant clearly managed to establish before the jury that Garrett had been charged along with the defendant for the crime involved in this case.

¶10When the defendant through counsel attempted to elicit whether or not the State had granted immunity to Garrett, the witness responded that he didn't know, and the court sustained objections to counsel's repeated inquiry on that question.

¶11In our view, the trial court's rulings were discretionary, and the appellant has not shown such a clear abuse which resulted in a denial of his constitutional right of confrontation or of fair cross-examination. Matera v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 218 So.2d 180; Robertson v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 245 So.2d 304.

¶12The other errors which appellant claims the court committed also have been carefully considered, and we find that these rulings likewise were discretionary and limited the trial testimony to that which was relevant and material. See Morrell v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 297 So.2d 579.

¶13For the reasons stated, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.

¶14Affirmed.

/312/so2d/809 · .json · Public domain