The extent to which parties may examine prospective jurors on voir dire lies within the trial judge's discretion. Essix v. State, 347 So.2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mizell v. New Kingsley Beach, Inc., 122 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We do not find that the trial judge clearly abused his discretion in this case.
"The extent to which parties may be permitted to go in examining prospective jurors on voir dire is subject to the sound discretion of the trial judge, the exercise of which will not be interfered with unless it is clearly abused." Essix v. State, 347 So.2d 664, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The trial court controls the scope of the voir dire examination.
Affirmed. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986); State v. Sheperd, 479 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1985); State v. Jones, 204 So.2d 515 (Fla. 1967); Kivett v. State, 629 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Wright v. State, 476 So.2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Zamora v. State, 361 So.2d 776, 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Essix v. State 347 So.2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
See Leonard v. State, No. 93-2606, ___ So.2d ___ [1995 WL 497258] (Fla. 4th DCA June 21, 1995), involving appellant's codefendant and raising the same issues as in this appeal. As to the additional point regarding jury questioning raised by appellant, we also affirm. See Essix v. State, 347 So.2d 664, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). HERSEY, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Although we recognize that the court could, and perhaps should, have afforded counsel more leeway, the court's ruling did not rise to the degree of abuse of discretion mandating reversal. See generally Moody v. State, 418 So.2d 989 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1214, 103 S.Ct. 1213, 75 L.Ed.2d 451 (1983); Essix v. State, 347 So.2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1978). Therefore, the judgment of conviction is affirmed and we remand for resentencing as to counts II and III.
We have reviewed these comments and find them entirely proper. See Washington v. State, 432 So.2d 44, 47 (Fla. 1983); David v. State, 369 So.2d 943, 944 (Fla. 1979); Smith v. State, 365 So.2d 704, 706-07 (Fla. 1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S.Ct. 177, 62 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); Essix v. State, 347 So.2d 664, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1978). Second, the defendant complains about the admission in evidence of a shirt and gloves.
The latitude which is given the parties in examining prospective jurors is subject to the judge's sound discretion. Essix v. State, 347 So.2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The materiality and propriety of voir dire questions are to be decided by the judge.
The extent to which the parties may examine prospective jurors on voir dire is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Essix v. State, 347 So.2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We have reviewed the transcript of the voir dire examination which encompassed over 400 pages and find no abuse of discretion.