K.K. v. State, 97-3163

Decision Date18 September 1998
Docket NumberNo. 97-3163,97-3163
Citation717 So.2d 193
Parties23 Fla. L. Weekly D2159 K. K., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County; John W. Watson, III, Judge.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lyle Hitchens, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Steven J. Guardiano, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

COBB, Judge.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the state, after it had rested and the defense had moved for a judgment of acquittal, to re-open its case to cure the defect pointed out in the defense motion.

On appeal, the defendant relies on the opinion of Burton v. State, 596 So.2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), which found double jeopardy in a case wherein the state's motion to reopen followed the trial court's pronouncement that the defendant therein was not guilty. That is not what occurred in the instant case.

The First District Court of Appeal has held in several cases that allowing the state to reopen its case is a matter for the trial court's discretion. See, e.g., Fitzhugh v. State, 698 So.2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Jones v. State, 392 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Dees v. State, 357 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

Over 100 years ago the Florida Supreme Court held that reopening a case for additional testimony is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Hoey v. Fletcher, 39 Fla. 325, 22 So. 716 (1897). It has reiterated that view in more recent cases. See, e.g., Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862 (Fla.1982), cert denied, 460 U.S. 1103, 103 S.Ct. 1802, 76 L.Ed.2d 366 (1983); Pitts v. State, 185 So.2d 164 (Fla.1966).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Ishamel v. State, 00-2634
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 15, 2002
    ...claim is meritless. See Fitzhugh v. State, 698 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). No abuse of discretion has been shown. See K.K. v. State, 717 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA We also find no merit in Ishmael's claim of reversible error in the trial court's management of closing argument. It is well-......
  • Ishmael v. State, 1D00-2634.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 15, 2002
  • Lyles v. State, 98-03772.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 15, 1999
  • Arthur v. State, 97-3390
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 18, 1998
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT