“We find no abuse of discretion in limiting the cross examination. What counsel sought to elicit was merely cumulative to other evidence already in the record.”
How later courts described this case
- “We find no abuse of discretion in limiting the cross examination. What counsel sought to elicit was merely cumulative to other evidence already in the record.”
- explaining trial court has discretion during voir dire to preclude attorneys from pre-trying their case or obtaining a commitment on the ultimate issues
- finding information not offered for truth of the matter where “the contents of the BOLO elicited by the state below merely contained a description of a particular car and contained no accusatory information whatsoever”
- upholding Florida's use of a six-person jury in non-capital cases
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 14, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-2013
Lower Tribunal No. F19-13643
________________
Nathaniel Brown,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carmen
Cabarga, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jennifer Thornton, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, SCALES, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Figueroa v. State, 952 So. 2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007) (explaining trial court has discretion during voir dire to preclude
attorneys from pre-trying their case or obtaining a commitment on the
ultimate issues); R.V. v. State, 388 So. 3d 952, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
(describing admissions of photos under the silent witness theory “upon a
showing of the reliability of the production process”); Kopp v. State, 314 So.
3d 451, 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“We therefore find the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in admitting Reyes's testimony to support the State’s
other evidence on the issue of identity.”); Collier v. State, 701 So. 2d 1197,
1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (finding information not offered for truth of the
matter where “the contents of the BOLO elicited by the state below merely
contained a description of a particular car and contained no accusatory
information whatsoever”); Bullock v. Mount Sinai Hosp. of Greater Miami,
Inc., 501 So. 2d 738, 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“We find no abuse of discretion
in limiting the cross examination. What counsel sought to elicit was merely
cumulative to other evidence already in the record.”); Concepcion v. State,
188 So. 3d 5, 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“The defendant claims that the State’s
closing argument, which was in response to the defense's closing argument,
denigrated the defense. The record, however, demonstrates that the State’s
arguments were responsive, and were directed to the evidence, and were
2
not personal attacks of defense counsel or improper denigration of the
defendant's theory of defense.”); Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 103 (1970)
(upholding Florida's use of a six-person jury in non-capital cases).
3