Wilk v. State, s. 68--223
| Decision Date | 07 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | 68--224,Nos. 68--223,s. 68--223 |
| Citation | 217 So.2d 610 |
| Parties | Edward Dominik WILK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard Barest, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
By two informations the appellant was charged with having committed a crime against nature and a lewd, lascivious or indecent assault upon two minors under the age of 14 years, in violation of § 800.01 and § 800.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. respectively. He was tried thereon without a jury, found and adjudged guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment for two consecutive terms of one year.
On this appeal taken by the defendant he presents two points for our consideration, viz:
'Whether the trial court erred to the extent of denying the defendant due process of law when it severely restricted cross-examination by defense counsel of the alleged victims and the arresting officer, refused to require psychiatric examination of the complaining witnesses, in ruling that the state had proven the defendant guilty beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.
* * *
* * *
'Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to quash informations when said informations were not filed within the time period set forth by the court.'
Regarding the first point, appellant contends the court improperly restricted his cross-examination of the two complaining witnesses and the arresting officer. The record does not support that contention. It is disclosed that the matters as to which appellant claims he was so restricted on cross-examination were either outside the scope of the direct examination or were not germane. A further contention of appellant on this point is that the court committed error in denying his request, made during the trial, for the complaining witnesses to be required to submit to psychiatric examination. That ruling was one within the sound judicial discretion of the court, and abuse of discretion was not shown.
On considering the appellant's second point, we find no error is disclosed. The appellant's contention there was that the court incorrectly denied his motion to quash the informations because they were not filed within a period of time specified by the trial court following a ruling quashing the original informations. The latter were filed on May 16, 1966, and were quashed on July 19,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kitchen v. State, CR
...159, 49 Cal.Rptr. 302, 410 P.2d 838, 18 A.L.R.3d 1416 (1966); State v. Miller, 35 Wis.2d 454, 151 N.W.2d 157 (1967); Wilk v. State, 217 So.2d 610 (Fla.App., 1969). See also, Annot. 18 A.L.R.3d 1433 (1968). This rule has been applied, appropriately we feel, where the witness, a relatively yo......
-
Broadway v. State
...of law may be found in State v. Dennis, 28 Okl.Cr. 312, 230 P. 935; People v. Norman, 9 Mich.App. 647, 158 N.W.2d 38 (1968); Wilk v. State, Fla.App., 217 So.2d 610. We must therefore conclude that because the order entered by Judge Owens remanding the case for further preliminary hearing di......
-
State v. Camejo
...lacks the power to actually compel the victim to submit to such an examination. Dinkins at 150; 45 A.L.R.4th at 315. In Wilk v. State, 217 So.2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), it was implied that such an examination is not constitutionally required.2 Later, in Dinkins, the court noted that under s......
-
State v. Coe
...then-section 801.161, Florida Statutes (1969), provided for such examinations in child molestation cases. See also Wilk v. State, 217 So.2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (it was within trial court's sound discretion to deny defense motion to require psychiatric examination of complaining witnesses......