Holt v. State, 78-474
| Decision Date | 02 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-474,78-474 |
| Citation | 378 So.2d 106 |
| Parties | Ulysses HOLT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. /T4-66. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and John D. Cecilian, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The defendant, Ulysses Holt, was charged with armed robbery. The key witness at trial against Holt was one Gwendolyn Tisdale, who also was charged with the robbery.
Prior to trial Tisdale had been granted immunity for her testimony. She had refused to talk with defense counsel at scheduled depositions and, at one point, had fled from the jurisdiction.
At trial the only direct evidence placing Holt at the scene of the crime came from Tisdale. Although the fact of the grant of immunity to her was elicited by the prosecutor on direct examination, the efforts of defense counsel to inquire as to the details surrounding that grant of immunity were foreclosed by a series of inexplicable objections and rulings thereon by the trial court. Illustrative of the circumscription of cross-examination of this key witness is the following excerpt from the trial transcript:
Q. During this interview, did the police officers indicate to you that they would grant you immunity?
Q. At any point during this conversation, did you get the impression that you were being offered something in return for giving a statement?
Q. Did you eventually make a statement that Ricky Holt and Willie Herman and Chuck Felton were involved in this?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Why did you make that statement?
Q. What did you tell them then?
A. When?
Q. After you say you told them these people were involved?
A. I told them who it was and what happened on the day of the robbery.
Q. After you made the statement to them, were you arrested?
A. No, I wasn't.
Q. What happened to you after you made the statement to them?
A. I was allowed to go home.
Q. Allowed to go home?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to making the statement concerning Mr. Holt and Mr. Davis and Mr. Felton, did the police officers tell you you were going to go to jail, that they were going to get you put in prison for ten years or a period of time?
Q. At anytime, did you flee the jurisdiction of the State of Florida?
Q. Were you eventually made a co-defendant in this case?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And, when were you promised immunity if you testified here today?
A. Tuesday.
Q. Do you recall being in Orange County back in 1976, August of 1976?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Where had you come from?
Q. Do you recall appearing in Court in 1976, and refusing to testify?
Q. When did you decide to come to Florida? When did you decide you wanted to testify in this particular case? Did you notify anybody?
The exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-376, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). Any evidence which tends to establish that a witness is appearing for the State for any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Childers v. State
...limit cross-examination of a state witness as to his hopes for leniency when he testified previously for the State); Holt v. State, 378 So.2d 106, 107-08 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (stating, "[a]ny evidence which tends to establish that a witness is appearing for the State for any reason other tha......
-
Lewis v. State
...that a witness is appearing for the state for any reason other than to tell the truth should not be kept from the jury. Holt v. State, 378 So.2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Lavette, 442 So.2d at 268 (emphasis I would vacate the judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. 1 This factor ta......
-
State v. Anthony
...agreement, court refrained from placing any restrictions on cross-examination of key government witness in this area); Holt v. State, 378 So.2d 106 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980) (trial court should not have precluded defense counsel's inquiry on cross-examination regarding details surrounding gran......
-
Rivera v. State
...is appearing for the prosecution for any reason other than to tell the truth should not be kept from the jury. Holt v. State, 378 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Defendants may cross-examine a witness about the conditions of a plea bargain entered into between the state and the witness......
-
Chapter 6
...4th DCA 1996); Stanley v. State, 648 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Arias v. State, 593 So.2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Holt v. State, 378 So.2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); See also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 608.5, at 457 (2000 ed.) ("Interest, motive and animus are never collater......