Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...The State contends that the evidence was relevant to establish Hunter's possession of the weapon after the shootings, and also to establish the context of the criminal transaction. We agree. Next, Hunter maintains that the trial court erred by limiting the cross-examination of Detective Flynt, a State witness. Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (1993), states that "[c]ross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness." Detective Flynt was called as a chain-of-custody witness and his testimony was limited....

...the weekend of the murders, the sheets wrapped around Dacosta's body, Boyd's whereabouts on the night of the murders, whether he knew Dacosta, his interrogation by the Broward County Sheriff's Office, and the DNA evidence associated with the crimes. Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (2001), states, "Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness....

...since the issue was not broached on direct examination. See Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244, 251 (Fla.1995) (finding trial court did not err in limiting attempted cross-examination of police detective which was "clearly outside the scope of direct"); § 90.612(2), Fla....

...ing argument that the State could prove Chandler raped Judy Blair. Therefore, this was a legitimate subject of inquiry for the State in cross-examining Chandler as it attempted to cast doubt on his defense and undermine his credibility as a witness. § 90.612(2), Fla....

...the appellant's motion for continuance. Geralds' second claim is that the prosecutor's cross-examination of him during the penalty phase proceeding was beyond the scope of his testimony on direct examination about evidence linking him to the murder. Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (1993), states that "[c]ross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness." We have defined the permissible bounds of cros...

...State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953) (quoting 58 Am.Jur. Witnesses, § 632, at 352 (1948)); see also Coxwell v. State, 361 So.2d 148, 151 (Fla.1978). In addition to the facts *100 and circumstances connected to the matters testified to during direct examination, section 90.612(2) provides that all witnesses may be cross-examined concerning their credibility....

...Generally, rebuttal testimony is permitted to refute a defense theory or to impeach a defense witness. See Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 612.5 (1999). While a trial court has the right to control the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, *322 see § 90.612, Fla....

...Initially, we reject Johnson's claim that the question eliciting the remark went beyond the permissible scope of redirect examination. As the trial judge concluded, the State could have recalled Vitale to the stand and elicited the statement in a new direct examination. See § 90.612(1)(b), Fla....

...The State objected to the line of questioning and the trial court sustained the objection. A review of the record shows that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony because the testimony went beyond the scope of direct examination which concerned hair and fiber analysis. See § 90.612, Fla....

...Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the ... needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Alternatively, as Professor Ehrhardt has observed, section 90.612(1)(b) also "recognizes the trial judge's responsibility to reasonably control the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence so as to `avoid a needless consumption of time.'" Charles W....

...e reasonable control over the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation" in order to "[f]acilitate, through effective interrogation and presentation, the discovery of the truth" and "[a]void needless consumption of time." § 90.612(1)(a)-(b), Fla....

...It was not outside the scope of redirect examination for the state to inquire whether the doctor thought it was possible that Farinas had acquired knowledge of possible defenses from sources other than the manual. Therefore, this line of questioning was permissible. § 90.612(2), Fla....

...ced from the witness by other parties, and to challenge the witness's credibility when appropriate. Contrary to the form generally used in *91 direct examination, counsel on cross-examination is authorized to lead and impeach a witness. §§ 90.608, 90.612, Fla....

...evidence or may prove that the witness has made an inconsistent statement at another time, without regard to whether the party was surprised by the testimony of the witness. Leading questions may be used during any examination under this subsection. Section 90.612 of the Florida Statutes (1987) provides: 90.612 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation....

...There is no indication in those cases that the evidence of the threats was introduced except as part of the state's case on direct or redirect examination. Here, however, the state was seeking to impeach the credibility of a defense witness on cross-examination as permitted by section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...Lew or any other expert as a defense witness to testify about autoerotic asphyxiation. The Florida Evidence Code provides that "[c]ross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness." § 90.612(2), Fla....

...ng with a witness' credibility: Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters. § 90.612(2), Fla....

...The abrogation of Federal Rule 43(b) because of the enactment of the cited provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence also implicitly serves to construe the purpose of the former federal rule and of our present rule 1.450(a) which is based on the former federal rule. Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (1981), now provides for the scope of cross-examination, substantially adopting the substance of Fed. R.Evid. 611(b). Section 90.612(3), Florida Statutes (1981), now provides generally for leading questions only on cross-examination and recross-examination and the topic of who may impeach is now provided in section 90.608, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...abrogated. The first sentence of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.450(a) would then specifically provide for the use of leading questions as to unwilling or hostile witnesses, as an exception provided by rule of court as is explicitly permitted by section 90.612(3), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...e that the witness will give testimony favorable to that party without the need to use leading questions. From this assumption comes the general rule that a party may not ask a witness a leading question on direct or redirect examination. Fla. Stat. § 90.612(3)(a), (1981)....

...On the other hand there is a similar assumption that a witness did give favorable testimony to the calling party and that the adverse party generally needs, and should be given, the advantage of using leading questions on cross-examination of that witness in the interest of a proper search for the truth. Fla. Stat. § 90.612(3)(b), (1981)....

...Our research has disclosed no authority expressly addressing this rather novel question, nor have respective counsel directed our attention to such authority. Our reasoning on this point attempts to give due weight to the broad discretion accorded a trial court in the conduct of a trial, see § 90.612, Fla....

matters affecting the credibility of the witness.” § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). The credibility of a witness

...Defense: Objection, Your Honor, goes to— Prosecutor: Goes to why he did it. Defense: —what we said at sidebar. Court: Overruled. Prosecutor: Why did you do that? Lindsey: I didn't. Prosecutor: So the jury is wrong? Lindsey: I think the jury is mistaken. Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (2006), provides: Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness....

...Thus, whether the trial court should exclude the "contract confirmation" as "needless presentation of cumulative evidence" under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), is a question that can only be answered based on the proceedings at trial. See also § 90.612(1)(b), Fla....

...ge established under section 90.502, and to further provide that the new provision shall not be construed to constitute an exemption to either section 119.07 or section 286.011, Florida Statutes. Chapter 2000-316, section 2, amends subsection (3) of section 90.612, Florida Statutes (Mode and order of interrogation and presentation) to instruct the judge to take special care to protect a witness under age fourteen from questions that are in a form that cannot reasonably be understood by a person...

...Because Nashef was a key witness, Sanders contends that the inclusion of this testimony would have prevented the State from establishing that the murder was premeditated for conviction purposes and that it was cold, calculated, and premeditated for sentencing purposes. Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (1995), provides: Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness....

matters affecting the credibility of the witness." § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). The trial judge has wide

...1536, 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998) (citations omitted). To open the door to evidence about an unrelated case was to create a trial within a trial; there was a risk that the trial would be needlessly lengthened and that the additional evidence would obscure the discovery of the truth. See § 90.612(1), Fla.Stat....

...Absent a proffer of the testimony, it is impossible to gauge the value of the testimony and whether the court improperly restricted the wife's full and fair presentation of her case. See Antoniak v. Antoniak, 652 So.2d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Stager, 163 So.2d at 17. The trial court has authority under section 90.612, Florida Statutes (1997), to efficiently manage trial proceedings, including "avoiding the needless consumption of time." While pre-established time limits must flex with circumstances, the time of a trial judge is not an infinitely elastic commodity....

...*169 The Florida Evidence Code expressly provides that a witness's credibility may be attacked by a showing of bias, § 90.608(1)(b), Florida Statutes, although both the Code and case law permit judicial discretion in controlling the mode, order, and scope of cross-examination. § 90.612; Hernandez, supra ....

...Hardwick from her visits with his wife. 205 Unless a witness is called for the defense, cross examination is limited to the scope of direct examination and, thus, was controlled by the prosecution in this death-penalty case. See Fla. Stat. 90.612 (2). 206 See, e.g., Pretrial Deposition of Jeffrey Showalter at 351; Pretrial Deposition of William Bavar at 40....

permit cross-examination into additional matters. § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2008); see Boyd v. State, 910

...5th DCA 1980) (noting that "[o]ften one side will allow the opposition to introduce inadmissible testimony so as to attack it on cross-examination"). We find no error in the trial judge's determination that Washington's cross-examination of Gallon opened the door to the state's redirect examination. See § 90.612, Fla....

...uest to reopen his case. The excuse must be reasonable because the trial court is vested with discretion as to the order of proof during a trial in order to "[f]acilitate... the discovery of the truth ..." and "[a]void needless consumption of time." § 90.612(1)(a)-(b), Fla....

..."The ability to expose an improper impetus for a witness' testimony is an essential component of the right to a jury trial." Jones, 678 So.2d at 892; see Purcell v. State, 735 So.2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Although a trial judge has the discretion to control the mode, order, and scope of cross examination under section 90.612(1), Florida Statutes (2006), such discretion is "constrained by a defendant's right to confront adverse *286 witnesses." Smith, 404 So.2d at 169....

...The sole purpose of Jenkins's testimony was to show that there was no incident of repeat violence on April 26, so that there was no basis for an injunction under section 784.046. Cloud's attempt to cross-examine Jenkins about the events of April 24 went beyond the subject matter of the direct examination. See § 90.612(2), Fla....

...At the outset, we recognize that although wide latitude is permitted on cross-examination in a criminal proceeding, its scope and limitation lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and is not subject to review except for a clear abuse of discretion. Sireci v. State, 399 So.2d 964 (Fla. 1981). Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes, provides that cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination, and matters affecting the witness' credibility, although the trial court may, in its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters....

...In this case, jeopardy attached when the jury was "impaneled and sworn." Gaines, 770 So.2d at 1225; Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 98 S.Ct. 2156, 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). At that point, the trial judge had the general power to control "the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence." § 90.612(1), Fla....

examination on issues raised by direct examination. § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2009) (“Cross-examination of a

...3169, 104 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1989), the issue of release is expressed in terms of seven factors. In this case, restating four factors as seven factors produces no different result, although the discussion at 688 F.Supp. at 537 suggests strongly that "the merits" means the strength of the appeal. [1] Section 90.612, Florida Evidence Code, states: (1) the judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, so as to: (a) facilitate, through effective interrogation and p...

...f Brandon's otherwise inadmissible prior statement through leading questions. We disagree. The standard of review on the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion as limited by the rules of evidence. Hudson v. State, 992 So.2d 96, 107 (Fla.2008). Section 90.612(1), Florida Statutes, provides that the judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode of the interrogation of witnesses....

...wing Napier to use the cane. The state further contended that the video showed Stotler acting as a lookout. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in ruling that the proposed cross-examination went beyond the scope of direct examination. Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (2001) provides that "[c]ross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness." To determine the proper scope of a defendant'...

...[2] Specifically, appellant brought out statements regarding Sullivan's general dislike of attorneys; his disregard for the quality of jury pools in the 1970's; and his discovery in middle age that his natural father was actually a plaintiff's lawyer for a time. [3] "Section 90.612(1)(b) recognizes the trial judge's responsibility to reasonably control the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence so as to `avoid needless consumption of time.' Evidence which has minimal probative value can be excluded under section 90.612(1)(b) when it is a waste of time, even though the court cannot exclude it on that basis under section 90.403." Charles W....

...On redirect, she stated that she had run the meeting and that this would not have been possible if she had been drinking. Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter on direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. See § 90.612(2), Fla....

discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters.” § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). [W]hen the direct examination

expert witness testimony. We would observe that section 90.612(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), expressly requires

...eclarant is not subject to cross-examination about a topic not covered during a direct examination because the party cross-examining a witness must generally limit its questions to matters within the "scope" of the direct examination. Id.; see also, § 90.612(2), Fla....

...ere addressed on direct examination, “touched the core of [his] defense and entirely cut off his opportunity to impeach the State’s witnesses.” We conclude that this claim lacks merit for several reasons. First, the plain language of section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes, expressly provides trial courts with the discretion to expand cross-examination beyond the subject matters discussed during direct examination. § 90.612, Fla....

...direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters.”) (emphasis supplied). Thus, pursuant to section - 57 - 90.612(2), the trial court could have permitted the defense to cross-examine State witnesses on evidentiary matters that were outside the scope of direct examination, but it was not required to do so....

truth” and “[a]void needless consumption of time.” § 90.612(1)(a) & (b), Fla. Stat. (1997). The admission

...d finally to give each party an opportunity to make closing arguments. This type of traditional procedure should be utilized in the typical case because it enables the parties to fully present their case and develop a complete record for appeal. See § 90.612, Fla....

control" over the interrogation of witnesses. See § 90.612(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). *216Because we find that

...since the issue was not broached on direct examination. See Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244, 251 (Fla.1995) (finding trial court did not err in limiting attempted cross-examination of police detective which was "clearly outside the scope of direct"); § 90.612(2), Fla....

examination that he voluntarily left his employment. See § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (1996); see also Coco v. State

witnesses to avoid needless consumption of time. § 90.612(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). Further, we see no abuse

prevent the needless presentation of evidence. Section 90.612(1), Florida Statutes (2022), requires trial

limiting cross-examination to that subject. See § 90.612(2), Fla.Stat. (1987). As to the plaintiffs’ deposition

allowing evidence of the suspension was error. Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (1997) provides: Cross-examination

witness testimony. We would observe that section 90.612(1)(b), Florida Statutes [] expressly requires

Ehrhardt, § 403.1, at 159-60 (2002); see also § 90.612(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). The application of a

cumulative to testimony already received. See § 90.612(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). In light of the affirmance

. [s]howing that the witness is biased.” Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (2022), likewise provides

courtroom during the prosecution's case. See also § 90.612(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004) ("The judge shall exercise

puts words in his mouth to be echoed back. Section 90.612(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1985) provides that

60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)). To that end, section 90.612(1), Florida Statutes (2022), expressly obligates

questions should be permitted on cross-examination.” § 90.612(3), Fla. Stat. (2010). There was no reason why

discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters. § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (1997); Sanders v. State, 707 So

control" over the interrogation of witnesses. See § 90.612(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). *216Because we find that

control” over the interrogation of witnesses. See § 90.612(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). Because we find

truth, and (2) avoid needless consumption of time. § 90.612(1)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. (2018). “When required

order of the interrogation of witness*544es,” Section 90.612, Florida Statutes (1979), this court has recognized

U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982). § 90.612, Fla.Stat. (1981); Ellis v. State, 25 Fla. 702

discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters.” § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2008); see also Boyd v. State

...missibility of evidence and the permissible scope of cross-examination for an abuse of discretion. Kulling v. State, 827 So.2d 311, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). In this case, Garcia invited cross-examination regarding his purported love for his wife. See § 90.612(2), Fla....

to an abuse of discretion standard); see also § ■90.612(1), Fla. Stat. Appellant additionally argues that

and “[a]void needless consumption of time.” § 90.612(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). Further, a trial

and presentation, the discovery of the truth.” § 90.612(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2025); see also Ketterson

door to the state’s redirect examination. See § 90.612, Fla. Stat. (1999). On the remaining issue, we