Paul v. State
Charles PAUL v. The STATE of Florida
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING JORGENSON, Judge.
We grant the state’s motion for rehearing, withdraw the opinion previously issued in this case, and substitute the following opinion in its place.
Charles Paul appeals from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for second-degree murder with a firearm. We affirm.
On appeal, Paul contends that the trial court impermissibly thwarted his cross-examination of an adverse witness and denied him his constitutional right to confront that witness. We disagree. The statements Paul sought to elicit went beyond the scope of direct examination and would have tended to bolster his defense theory. As the theory was a defensive matter, Paul should have developed it by calling his own witness. See Penn v. State, 574 So.2d 1079 (Fla.1991); Steinkorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982). Because we hold that the trial court properly restricted cross-examination under Penn , we do not reach the state’s alternative rationale for excluding the testimony, namely that the statement sought to be elicited was rank hearsay that did not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
As to Paul’s remaining points on appeal, we find no merit.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(Proper for trial court to restrict defendant's cross-examination that "went beyond the scope of direct examination and would have tended to bolster his defense theory. As the theory was a defensive matter, Paul should have developed it by calling his own witness.")
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.