Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law
Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law
Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Pernutting the reputation testby. <strong>of</strong> Detective mi;ttlm ws error. Ihe<br />
evidence was dmmgbg because FJ1wdvs testinmy was that silly Lmq had told<br />
him that the defendant was not involved in the mder <strong>of</strong> Nancy Shepard, and that<br />
The remedy is a new trial.<br />
During the prosecutor's cross-examination <strong>of</strong> defense witness Richard<br />
Ellwood, the prosecutor inquired into the nature <strong>of</strong> the witness's prior convictions,<br />
response to the hterrogation. IT. 1780-1781)<br />
lzle rule in <strong>Florida</strong> has long been established that any witness who testifies<br />
<strong>of</strong> the convictions for the direct examiner to first aEk these questions.<br />
Leonard v. Skte, 386 So. 2d 51 (<strong>Fla</strong>. 2d D.C.A. 1980). No additional questioning<br />
is pxmitted. IkArthur v. - Cook, 99 So. 2d 565 (<strong>Fla</strong>. 1957), Mnard, supra.<br />
The interrogation <strong>of</strong> a critical defcmse witness Fy the prospcution to the<br />
extent that the witness asserted his privilege aqainst Felf-incrimination was<br />
clearly irclDroEr and was certainly'damgkg to the wit-necsq rredibility.<br />
his testbony was. that: Billy Lnng had told him that FDbert Parker did not<br />
Recause<br />
participte in Nancy Sheppard's &er, his credibility was most important to the<br />
Page -59-
Change language