Opinion ID: 1671948
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: full and fair evidentiary hearing

Text: Robinson next argues that he was denied a full and fair evidentiary hearing because the trial judge denied funding for the transportation of fifty-two out-of-town witnesses and because the judge allowed only eight witnesses to testify. We find no merit in Robinson's claim under the circumstances presented here. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that [r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the ... needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Alternatively, as Professor Ehrhardt has observed, section 90.612(1)(b) also recognizes the trial judge's responsibility to reasonably control the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence so as to `avoid a needless consumption of time.' Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 403.1 at 135 (1997 ed.). Under either basis, we find that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying expenses for Robinson's fifty-two out-of-town witnesses. The trial court reviewed the proffered witnesses' affidavits and concluded that the testimony of many of the witnesses would be marginal and cumulative. Robinson still had the opportunity to present testimony about his abusive childhood through numerous witnesses and to present even more detailed mental health testimony through the expert, Dr. Harvey Krop. Accordingly, we find that the trial court acted within its discretion on this record in limiting the presentation of evidence it deemed cumulative.