Whitfield v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 17, 1989

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-10-17

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[i]n a criminal prosecution, it is improper cross-examination to ask a witness if another witness (who had previously testified) `was lying.'”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 598 So. 2d 270 - Duarte v. State, 880 So. 2d 1287 - Wilson v. State

Relies on 537 So. 2d 103 - Forehand v. State · Quinn v. Metropolitan Dade County Aviation Department · 525 So. 2d 964 - Johnson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-10-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 2012

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1In 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

¶2Reversed and remanded with directions.

¶3. We also note that in the sentencing, the enhancement because of foreign convictions, was error. Forehand v. State, 537 So.2d 103 (Fla. 1989); Johnson v. State, 525 So.2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).