Coco v. State (1953)

Coxwell v. State, 361 So. 2d 148, 151 (Fla. 1978) (quoting Coco v. State, 62 So. 2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953) (additional citation omitted)).

See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Coxwell v. State, 361 So.2d 148, 152 (Fla.1978); Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 894-95 (Fla.1953).

Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 894-95 (Fla.1953). “[Cjross-examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut or make clearer the facts testified to in chief-” Boyd, 910 So.2d at 185 (quoting Coco, 62 So.2d at 895 ).

Under Coxwell , “a fair and full cross-examination of a witness upon the subjects opened by the direct examination is an absolute right, as distinguished from a privilege, which must always be accorded to the person against whom the witness is called.... ” 361 So.2d at 151 (quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 894-95 (Fla.1953)).

Coxwell v. State, 361 So.2d 148, 151 (Fla.1978) (quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953) (en banc)); see also Dempsey v. Shell Oil Co., 589 So.2d 373, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953) (quoting 58 Am.

However, as often said, the cross-examiner ordinarily is limited in his or her presentation to the scope of the direct examination, including "the details of an event or transaction a portion only of which has been testified to on direct examination." Robertson, 829 So.2d at 912 (quoting Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96, 99 (Fla.1996)) ("[C]ross examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matt…

Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 894-95 (Fla. 1953). "[C]ross-examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut or make clearer the facts testified to in chief. . . ." Boyd, 910 So.2d at 185 (quoting Coco, 62 So.2d at 895 ).

Full cross-examination of a witness on a subject opened by direct examination is an “absolute right.” Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 894 (Fla.1953).

Id. ; see also Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231-32 (1988) (same); Gibson v. State, 661 So.2d 288, 291 (Fla. 1995) ("Inherent within this right is a defendant's right to expose a witness's motivation in testifying because it is `the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.'"); Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 1953) ("The constitutional right of cross-examination is not a mere privilege to be granted or withhe…

Similarly, we have long held that “cross examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut, or make clearer the facts testified to in chief.” Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96 , *1178 99 (Fla.1996) (quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953)); Coxwell v. State, 361 So.2d 148, 151 (Fla.1978) (same).

Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953) (quoting 58 Am.Jur.

As has been stated, cross-examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut or make clearer the facts testified to in chief ... 361 So.2d at 151 (quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 894-895 (Fla.1953)).

Zerquera v. State, 549 So.2d 189, 192 (Fla. 1989) (quoting Coxwell, 361 So.2d at 151 (quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953))).

Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96, 99 (Fla. 1996) (emphasis supplied) (quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953)).

See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999); Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 894-95 (Fla.1953) (“Cross-examination of a witness upon the subjects covered in his direct examination is an invaluable right and when it is denied to him it cannot be said that such ruling does not constitute harmful and fatal error.”).

Our Florida Supreme Court has long held that "cross examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut, or make clearer the facts testified to in chief." Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96, 99 (Fla.1996) (quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953)); Coxwell v. State, 361 So.2d 148, 151 (Fla.1978) (same).

Furthermore, “it is error for the trial court to refuse to permit the cross-examination of a witness to extend to all matters germane to the direct examination, for such cross-examination is a matter of absolute right and is not a mere privilege.” Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953)(quoting 58 Am.Jur., Criminal Law § 629).

Similarly, we have long held that "cross examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut, or make clearer the facts testified to in chief." Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96, 99 (Fla.1996) (quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953)); Coxwell v. State, 361 So.2d 148, 151 (Fla. 1978) (same).

Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953) (quoting 58 Am.Jur.

Obviously, the state is allowed to delve into all matters which "may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut or make clearer the facts testified to in chief... ." Dempsey, 589 So.2d at 378 (quoting Zerquera v. State, 549 So.2d 189, 192 (Fla. 1989) (quoting Coxwell v. State, 361 So.2d 148, 151 (Fla. 1978) (quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 1953) (quoting 58 Am.Jur.Witnesses § 632 at 352 (1948))))) (footnote omitted).

Coco v. State, 62 So.2d at 894-895 (emphasis supplied).

As has been stated, cross-examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut or make clearer the facts testified to in chief... .'" Coxwell v. State, 361 So.2d 148, 151 (Fla. 1978) (quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 1953) (quoting 58 Am.Jur.

As has been stated, cross-examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut or make clearer the facts testified to in chief by the witness on cross-examination." Roberts v. State, 510 So.2d 885, 893 (Fla. 1987) ( quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 1953)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 1123 , 99 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988).

As we said in Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 1953), quoting with approval the following passage from 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses § 632, at 352 (1948): [W]hen the direct examination opens a general subject, the cross-examination may go into any phase, and may not be restricted to mere parts which constitute a unity, or to the specific facts developed by the direct examination.

See Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96, 99 (Fla. 1996) (“[C]ross-examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to . all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut, or make clearer the facts testified to in chief[,]”) (quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 1953)).

See Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892 (Fla.1953) (holding that the right of cross-examination derives from both due process concerns as well as the Sixth Amendment, and a defendant's right to a full and fair cross-examination is absolute).

See Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 894-95 (Fla.1953); Fleming v. Albertson's Inc., 535 So.2d 682, 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

See also Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96, 99 (Fla.1996)("cross examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter, and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict, rebut, or make clearer the facts testified to in chief.")(quoting Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953)).

See Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892 (Fla.1953).

See § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (1996); see also Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953).

See Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892 (Fla.1953).

See Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1953), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 931 , 75 S.Ct. 774 , 99 L.Ed. 1261 (1955).

See Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 894-5 (Fla. 1953); see also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 (1938).

See Coco v. State, Fla. 1953, 62 So.2d 892 .

See Vann v. State, supra, 85 So.2d 133 , and Coco v. State, Fla., 62 So.2d 892 .

See Vann v. State, supra, 85 So.2d 133 , and Coco v. State, Fla., 62 So.2d 892 .