Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...to find other errors that deprived him of a fair trial. First we consider a series of claims that involve the testimony of Estes. Smith argues that the trial court erred initially when it granted the state's motion to call Estes as a court witness. Section 90.615 of the Florida Statutes (1985) provides a trial court the discretion to call a court witness when necessary to serve the interests of justice....

...The court refused to rule on these requests immediately, but part way through Pierson's testimony declared him to be an adverse witness. Wasko now argues that the court erred by not making Pierson a court witness. A court may call as its own a witness whom all parties may cross-examine. § 90.615, Fla....

...To the contrary, a trial judge may be required to take the initiative in some circumstances, to ensure that justice is done. For example, a trial judge may call a witness or question a witness called by a party, when the interest of justice requires that course of action. See § 90.615, Fla....

...The trial court found that Shere had been advised of his rights and waived them in accordance with Miranda and Mosley. We find no abuse of discretion. In Shere's final evidentiary claim, he contends that the trial court erred by calling Greulich to testify as a court witness pursuant to section 90.615(1) of the Florida Statutes (1987)....

...private counsel has no merit and warrants no discussion here. We also find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of a motion to exclude a photograph of the victim's body. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 545 So.2d 260, 265 (Fla. 1989). [9] Section 90.615(1) of the Florida Statutes (1987) provides: 90.615 Calling witnesses by the court....

...er, they determined that generally counsel should not call a witness whom he knew was not testifying truthfully and proceed to impeach that person. C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 608.2, at 298 (2d ed. 1984). [13] We are concerned here only with subsection 90.615(1) of the Florida Statutes (1987), authorizing courts to call witnesses to testify. We do not comment on subsection 90.615(2) of the Florida Statutes (1987), which authorizes courts to interrogate witnesses....

...Appellant's convictions are reversed, and the matter remanded for new trial. It is so ordered. ADKINS, OVERTON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. McDONALD, C.J., and BOYD, J., dissent. NOTES [1] In 1976, this general rule permitting court witnesses was codified and can now be found in the Florida Evidence Code, section 90.615, Florida Statutes, to wit: 90.615 Calling witnesses by the court (1) The court may call witnesses whom all parties may cross-examine....

...State, 437 So.2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (prior statement not admissible under Section 90.801(2)(a) but admissible under Section 90.608(2)). Under the circumstances of this case, it was impermissible to use the expedient of calling Mincey as a court witness under Section 90.615 for the purpose of eliciting his prior inconsistent statement either for impeachment purposes or as substantive evidence....

...This rule establishes the procedure to be followed for the use of experts. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, has encouraged the use of court-appointed experts to review financial information and reduce the cost of divorce litigation. Tomaino v. Tomaino, 629 So.2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Additionally, section 90.615(1), Florida Statutes, allows the court to call witnesses whom all parties may cross-examine....

..., the authority of the judge to call witnesses is well established." In resolving the question presented by this case, we look to the new Florida Evidence Code, Sections 90.01, et seq., Florida Statutes, 1976 Supp., to become effective July 1, 1977. Section 90.615 thereof, entitled "Calling witnesses by the court," provides: "(1) The court may call witnesses whom all parties may cross-examine. (2) When required by the interests of justice, the court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by the court or by a party." We recognize that Section 90.615 was neither in effect at the time of the trial in this case, nor during the pendency of this appeal....

...rior unsworn statement for the purpose of proving the truth of the prior statement is error. The district Court stated: Under the circumstances of this case, it was impermissible to use the expedient of calling [the witness] as a court witness under Section 90.615 for the purpose of eliciting his prior inconsistent statement either for impeachment purposes or as substantive evidence....

...Andrews was ultimately charged with several counts of theft and, prior to appellants' trial, he informed the prosecuting attorney that he would not testify for the state unless he was granted total immunity. Therefore, the state attorney moved that the court call Mr. Andrews as its own witness under § 90.615, Florida Statutes, so that the state could impeach him if he testified adversely....

...ne possession. The State contends that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because a trial judge may question a witness in the interest of justice. We agree with R.O. A court may question witnesses when required by the interests of justice. § 90.615(2), Fla....

...Given the state's inability to vouch for Henderson's credibility, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's action. Armstrong v. State, 399 So.2d 953, 959 (Fla. 1981). Once Henderson became a court witness, he was subject to cross-examination by all parties. Section 90.615(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...ty and broad discretion. The Florida Evidence Code authorizes the court to call witnesses, who may be cross-examined by all parties, and to interrogate witnesses called by a party or by the court itself "[w]hen required by the interests of justice." Section 90.615, Fla....

...ne possession. The State contends that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because a trial judge may question a witness in the interest of justice. We agree with R.O. A court may question witnesses when required by the interests of justice. § 90.615(2), Fla....

...This court may not reweigh the evidence to make value judgments that are appropriate for the trial judge. See Botterbusch v. Botterbusch, 851 So.2d 903, 904-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We also find no error in the trial court's questioning of the former wife. See § 90.615(2), Fla....

accuse Perry of having “raped” her. We affirm. Section 90.615(2), Florida Statutes, provides that a court

...ty.” Sparks v. State, 740 So.2d 33, 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (quoting J.F. v. State, 718 So.2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). “When required by the interests of justice, the court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by the court or by a party.” § 90.615(2), Fla....

...of due process. Upon the record presented, we find no fundamental error or deprivation of due process, but we caution the trial court of the importance of maintaining impartiality and the appearance of impartiality. A trial court may properly question witnesses “when required by the interests of justice.” § 90.615(2), Fla. Stat....

...valuation offered by the wife factored in any liability associated with the property. The wife’s financial affidavit does not reflect that there is any debt associated with the property. On remand, the trial court may clarify the wife’s testimony on this matter if necessary. See § 90.615(2), Fla....

...findings on valuation, remand was appropriate for the court to take additional testimony to determine valuation of assets and liabilities). The trial court may elicit testimony from the wife and other witnesses if necessary to make the required findings. See § 90.615(2), Fla....

witnesses whom all parties may cross-examine, § 90.615(1), Fla.Stat. (1987), and that at the time of

...ve his requested jury instruction and in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the tampering charge. In his remaining argument, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in calling Johnny Flowers as a “court witness” pursuant to section 90.615(1), Florida Statutes, 1 in light of the 1990 amendment to section 90.608, Florida Statutes, which allows for any party, including the party calling a witness, to attack the witness’s credibility....

...1st DCA 2013) (“To preserve an argument for appeal, an appellant must timely and contemporaneously object at the trial level, on a stated legal basis, and then raise that specific contention again on appeal.”). Accordingly, we AFFIRM. LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR. 1 Section 90.615(1) provides that a court “may call witnesses whom all parties may cross-examine.” The court witness rule was designed for those instances “where a party cannot vouch for the witness’s credibility, yet the witness’s evidence i...

...This rule establishes the procedure to be followed for the use of experts. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, has encouraged the use of court-appointed experts to review financial information and reduce the cost of divorce litigation. Tomaino v. Tomaino, 629 So.2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Additionally, section 90.615(1), Florida Statutes, allows the court to call witnesses whom all parties may cross-examine....

witnesses, whether called by the court or by a party.” § 90.615(2), Fla. Stat. “Such questioning may be appropriate

...2d DCA 2019)). See also R.O. v. State, 46 So. 3d 124, 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Questioning may be necessary, in the court's discretion, to ascertain the truth, or to clarify an issue”); Perry v. State, 776 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“Section 90.615(2), Florida Statutes, provides that a court may interrogate a witness, whether called by the court or a party, when required in the interests of justice....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla.1991); Secada v. Weinstein, 563 So.2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Crews v. Warren, 157 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); § 90.615(2), Fla....

trial. . Kincaid was called pursuant to section 90.-615(1), Florida Statutes (1985), which provides:

...t. The court also chided the attorney in front of the jury. None of these interruptions were based on objections from the state. ANALYSIS It is within the court’s prerogative to question witnesses “[w]hen required by the interests of justice.” § 90.615(2), *1214 Fla....

...f due process, but we caution the trial court of the importance of maintaining impartiality and the appearance of impartiality.”). “A trial court may properly question witnesses ‘when required by the interests of justice.’” Id. (quoting section 90.615(2), Fla....