Andino v. State

COBB, Judge.

The primary issue raised by this appeal is whether the trial court erred by prospectively ruling that cross-examination by An-dino’s counsel of Andino’s co-defendants, in the event they testified in their own behalf, would constitute “offering testimony in his own behalf” under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.250 so as to forfeit his right to first and last final argument.

We answered this question in Hart v. State, 526 So.2d 124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), wherein we said:

To hold that by availing himself of the constitutional right of cross-examination an accused thus forfeits his…