Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Roosevelt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 4, 2010No. 3D08-2680Published

1ConcurrenceRamirez, C.J.

I concur in the majority opinion except as to the use of the e-mail in cross-examination. The prosecutor was allowed to cross-examine Dr. Brown with an e-mail Dr. Brown sent to a defense attorney in Orlando several years ago. The e-mail did not involve a Jimmy Ryce Act proceeding. The matter was clearly collateral to this case, yet the prosecution was allowed to question the doctor on this matter ostensibly to show interest, bias, or prejudice. Although I realize that “a decision as to whether a particular question properly goes to interest, bias, or prejudice lies within the discretion of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Morrison v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2002
  2. Tanzi v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2007
  3. Farinas v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1990
  4. Fernandez v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1999
  5. In Re Commitment of DeBoltDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API