Rollins v. State
Roger Lee ROLLINS v. STATE of Florida
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
OWEN, Judge.
On this direct appeal from conviction for robbery, appellant urges as his sole point for reversal that the trial court erred in permitting two state’s witnesses to testify after it was shown that they had violated the court’s order for sequestration of witnesses.
When it comes to the court’s attention that a witness has violated the sequestration rule, the determination of whether that witness will thereafter be permitted to testify is within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. Rowe v. State, 1935, 120 Fla. 649 , 163 So. 22 . The record discloses that before the court permitted these witnesses to testify, they were first examined upon voir dire, following which the court made a determination that the violation was unintentional and did not substantially affect the ability of the identifying witness to make an in-court identification of the defendant. We conclude from an examination of the briefs and record that appellant has not shown that the court abused its discretion in the instant case.
The judgment is affirmed.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.