Summary
In Whitfield v. State, 549 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), we stated that "[i]n a criminal prosecution, it is improper cross examination to ask a witness if another witness (who had previously testified) `was lying.
Summary of this case from Wilson v. StateOpinion
No. 88-1398.
October 17, 1989.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, David M. Gersten, J.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Richard M. Nelson, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Jorge Espinosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.
In a criminal prosecution, it is improper cross examination to ask a witness if another witness (who had previously testified) "was lying." Boatwright v. State, 452 So.2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We therefore reverse the conviction under review and remand to the trial court for a new trial.
We also note that in the sentencing, the enhancement because of foreign convictions, was error. Forehand v. State, 537 So.2d 103 (Fla. 1989); Johnson v. State, 525 So.2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
Reversed and remanded with directions.