Dixon v. State

AFFIRMED. See Rowland v. State, 680 So.2d 502, 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (rejecting Rowland’s argument that his right to present a defense was unduly hampered when the trial court excluded evidence of an instance of sexual activity on the part of the child witness with another child, stating: “We do not disturb the trial judge’s ruling that the evidence was irrelevant.”).

BENTON, C.J., ROWE, and RAY, JJ., concur.