Case Name: Daniel C. LYTTLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1975-10-15
Citations: 320 So. 2d 424
Docket Number: No. 75-283
Parties: Daniel C. LYTTLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SCHEB, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 320
Pages: 424–426

Head Matter:
Daniel C. LYTTLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 75-283.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct. 15, 1975.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 7, 1975.
James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Steven H. Denman, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals a judgment and sentence of life imprisonment for the crime of forcible rape.
The appellant asserts that he was denied his right to closing argument to which he was entitled under RCrP 3.250 which provides in part:
"[A] defendant offering no testimony in his own behalf, except his own, shall be entitled to the concluding argument before the jury."
The record discloses that the appellant took the stand and testified in his own behalf; however, it further shows that during the State's case in chief the defendant introduced into evidence a note from his mother to him. The note was first mentioned by a State's witness on direct examination. The State's witness, after identifying the note, was asked by the prosecuting attorney, "What did the note say ?" The witness then read the note verbatim in front of the jury. The State did not introduce the note into evidence. Subsequently, on cross-examination, the defense again asked the witness to read the note, which he did, and then it was introduced into evidence as a defense exhibit.
The State contends that the defense, by introducing into evidence the note, lost the right to closing argument. They rely on Crosby v. State, 1925, 90 Fla. 381, 106 So. 741, and Grimsley v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 304 So.2d 493. In both Crosby and Grimsley the evidence introduced was first brought out in the State's case by the defense counsel on cross-examination and then introduced by the defense in the State's case. Under these facts in both Crosby and Grimsley it was held that the defendant forfeited his right to closing argument.
In Crosby it was stated at page 746:
. . The written receipt itself was no part of the state's evidence adduced upon cross-examination of its own witness. Because the defendant desired to put the receipt itself in evidence, and chose that particular time to do so does not constitute the receipt a part of the state's evidence. To so regard it would utterly deprive the state of control of its own case and throw the whole trial into confusion. Cross-examination by the defendant of a state's witness, when confined to its legitimate scope, would not deprive the defendant of the closing argument under either statute, but when the defendant, on cross-examination of a state's witness, identifies a document theretofore unmentioned in the state's case, and of his own motion, then places the document itself in evidence, such procedure passes entirely beyond the realm of cross-examination. The indubitable effect, then, of such procedure, is to offer testimony for the defendant. Consequently he is deprived of the closing argument, under section 6080." (emphasis added)
In the instant case, not only did the State identify the note in its own case, but had its own witness read the note verbatim before the jury. Under these facts the note was part of the State's evidence even though the defense introduced the note into evidence during cross-examination of the State's witness. We think that this is a substantial distinction from Crosby and Grimsley and that the appellant was entitled to closing argument.
In view of our reversal on this point and the granting of a new trial, the other points on appeal become moot.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
SCHEB, J., concurs.
BOARDMAN, J., dissents with opinion.