Rollins v. State, 70-1046
| Decision Date | 14 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 70-1046,70-1046 |
| Citation | 256 So.2d 541 |
| Parties | Roger Lee ROLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Carl V. M. Coffin, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
On this direct appeal from conviction for robbery, appellant urges as his sole point for reversal that the trial court erred in permitting two state's witnesses to testify after it was shown that they had violated the court's order for sequestration of witnesses.
When it comes to the court's attention that a witness has violated the sequestration rule, the determination of whether that witness will thereafter be permitted to testify is within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. Rowe v. State, 1935, 120 Fla. 649, 163 So. 22. The record discloses that before the court permitted these witnesses to testify, they were first examined upon voir dire, following which the court made a determination that the violation was unintentional and did not substantially affect the ability of the identifying witness to make an in-court identification of the defendant. We conclude from an examination of the briefs and record that appellant has not shown that the court abused its discretion in the instant case.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Del Monte Banana Co. v. Chacon
...violated, it is within his sound judicial discretion to determine how to remedy the violation. Odom, 403 So.2d at 941; Rollins v. State, 256 So.2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). See also Romano v. Palazzo, 83 Fla. 243, 91 So. 115 (1922). The remedy can range from not permitting the witness to tes......
-
Odom v. State
...the question that then arose before the court below was how to remedy it. This was a matter for the court's discretion. Rollins v. State, 256 So.2d 541 (Fla.4th DCA 1972). The court made an inquiry into the circumstances of the conversation and issued a ruling which we find to have been not......
-
Frierson v. State
...Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 18 Lister v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 238; Staten v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 697; Rollins v. State, Fla.App.1972 256 So.2d 541; Skold v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 627; United States v. Cooper, 5th Cir.1973, 472 F.2d 64; § 924.- 33, ...
- Estate of Fein, In re, 71-317