Annotations, Discussions, Cases:
Cases Citing Statute 90.612
Total Results: 72
660 So. 2d 244, 1995 WL 324080
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 1995 | Docket: 1639619
Cited 134 times | Published
...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....
910 So. 2d 167, 2005 WL 318568
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 2005 | Docket: 751955
Cited 112 times | Published
...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....
702 So. 2d 186, 1997 WL 633729
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 1997 | Docket: 2313637
Cited 96 times | Published
...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....
674 So. 2d 96, 1996 WL 73786
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 1996 | Docket: 380084
Cited 73 times | Published
...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....
825 So. 2d 304, 2002 WL 1430739
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 3, 2002 | Docket: 2518351
Cited 62 times | Published
...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....
969 So. 2d 938, 2007 WL 1933048
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 2007 | Docket: 1403693
Cited 55 times | Published
...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....
622 So. 2d 963, 1993 WL 194554
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 1993 | Docket: 546677
Cited 50 times | Published
...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....
707 So. 2d 688, 1998 WL 54134
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 1998 | Docket: 1260192
Cited 45 times | Published
...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....
71 So. 3d 848, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 383, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1565, 2011 WL 2637377
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 2011 | Docket: 2353993
Cited 43 times | Published
...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....
569 So. 2d 425, 1990 WL 154230
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 11, 1990 | Docket: 1189837
Cited 40 times | Published
...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....
579 So. 2d 86, 1991 WL 45123
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 1991 | Docket: 2041247
Cited 32 times | Published
...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....
513 So. 2d 1253, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 428
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 20, 1987 | Docket: 1295194
Cited 31 times | Published
...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)....
7 So. 3d 473, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 405, 2009 WL 702262
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 2009 | Docket: 1227181
Cited 25 times | Published
...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....
737 So. 2d 1208, 1999 WL 534733
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 27, 1999 | Docket: 1709666
Cited 21 times | Published
...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....
438 So. 2d 31
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 18, 1983 | Docket: 1731785
Cited 20 times | Published
...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)....
523 So. 2d 1199, 1988 WL 27734
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 1988 | Docket: 472660
Cited 14 times | Published
...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....
14 So. 3d 211, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 399, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1012, 2009 WL 1955053
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 2009 | Docket: 1650068
Cited 12 times | Published
...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....
765 So. 2d 920, 2000 WL 1206393
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2000 | Docket: 1522966
Cited 12 times | Published
...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....
825 So. 2d 339, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 679, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1482, 2002 WL 1476290
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 2002 | Docket: 1312117
Cited 11 times | Published
...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...
707 So. 2d 664, 1998 WL 19195
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 22, 1998 | Docket: 1259421
Cited 11 times | Published
...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....
254 So. 3d 283
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 20, 2018 | Docket: 7943259
Cited 10 times | Published
matters affecting the credibility of the witness." § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). The trial judge has wide
757 So. 2d 1246, 2000 WL 561717
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 10, 2000 | Docket: 1331499
Cited 10 times | Published
...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....
736 So. 2d 103, 1999 WL 414376
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 1999 | Docket: 1427586
Cited 10 times | Published
...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....
404 So. 2d 167
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 1981 | Docket: 1782317
Cited 9 times | Published
...*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 ....
320 F.3d 1127, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1717
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jan 31, 2003 | Docket: 397569
Cited 9 times | Published
...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....
758 So. 2d 1148, 2000 WL 368650
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 2000 | Docket: 1726179
Cited 9 times | Published
...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....
718 So. 2d 350, 1998 WL 654086
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 1998 | Docket: 1515131
Cited 8 times | Published
...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....
971 So. 2d 280, 2008 WL 80223
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 9, 2008 | Docket: 1731987
Cited 7 times | Published
..."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....
780 So. 2d 1006, 2001 WL 313697
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2001 | Docket: 1708764
Cited 6 times | Published
...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....
450 So. 2d 242
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 13, 1984 | Docket: 1729137
Cited 5 times | Published
...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....
42 So. 3d 279, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10849, 2010 WL 2925691
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 28, 2010 | Docket: 2399888
Cited 4 times | Published
...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....
839 F. Supp. 849, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17472, 1993 WL 512009
District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1993 | Docket: 1002207
Cited 4 times | Published
...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...
41 So. 3d 338, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10569, 2010 WL 2882466
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 2010 | Docket: 2399257
Cited 3 times | Published
...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....
834 So. 2d 940, 2003 WL 142286
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 22, 2003 | Docket: 1697585
Cited 3 times | Published
...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'...
804 So. 2d 390, 2001 WL 1190894
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 2001 | Docket: 1699489
Cited 2 times | Published
...[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....
688 So. 2d 301, 1996 WL 681387
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 27, 1996 | Docket: 1508294
Cited 2 times | Published
...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....
41 So. 3d 935, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10455, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1574
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 2010 | Docket: 358534
Cited 2 times | Published
...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....
175 So. 3d 204
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 7, 2015 | Docket: 2655276
Cited 1 times | Published
...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....
55 So. 3d 725, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2693, 2011 WL 743431
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 2011 | Docket: 2407850
Cited 1 times | Published
...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....
263 So. 3d 214
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 9, 2019 | Docket: 64702748
Cited 1 times | Published
control" over the interrogation of witnesses. See § 90.612(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). *216Because we find that
454 F. Supp. 2d 1137, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8258, 2006 WL 305918
District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2006 | Docket: 2451620
Cited 1 times | Published
...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....
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 2024 | Docket: 69309858
Published
prevent the needless presentation of evidence. Section 90.612(1), Florida Statutes (2022), requires trial
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 7, 2025 | Docket: 70188030
Published
witness testimony. We would observe that section 90.612(1)(b), Florida Statutes [] expressly requires
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2025 | Docket: 69714793
Published
. [s]howing that the witness is biased.” Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (2022), likewise provides
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 2024 | Docket: 68873749
Published
60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)). To that end, section 90.612(1), Florida Statutes (2022), expressly obligates
737 So. 2d 1208, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10059
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 27, 1999 | Docket: 64789652
Published
discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters. § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (1997); Sanders v. State, 707 So
263 So. 3d 214
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 9, 2019 | Docket: 64702749
Published
control" over the interrogation of witnesses. See § 90.612(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). *216Because we find that
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 9, 2019 | Docket: 8485410
Published
control” over the interrogation of witnesses. See § 90.612(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). Because we find
261 So. 3d 593
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 2, 2019 | Docket: 8468342
Published
truth, and (2) avoid needless consumption of time. § 90.612(1)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. (2018). “When required
427 So. 2d 212, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 27938
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 1983 | Docket: 64595251
Published
U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982). § 90.612, Fla.Stat. (1981); Ellis v. State, 25 Fla. 702
974 So. 2d 1154, 2008 WL 372935
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 2008 | Docket: 1717821
Published
...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....
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 2019 | Docket: 16068374
Published
and “[a]void needless consumption of time.” § 90.612(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). Further, a trial
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 2025 | Docket: 69845806
Published
and presentation, the discovery of the truth.” § 90.612(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2025); see also Ketterson
758 So. 2d 1148, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4245
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 2000 | Docket: 64797544
Published
door to the state’s redirect examination. See § 90.612, Fla. Stat. (1999). On the remaining issue, we
