Opinion
No. 82-1480.
March 9, 1983. Rehearing Denied March 30, 1983.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Edward A. Garrison, J.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Gary Caldwell, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Max Rudmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Upon consideration of the record it appears that error was committed when the trial court restricted Sloan's cross examination of the complaining witness regarding charges by the State pending against the witness. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Bailey v. State, 411 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (Hurley, J., specially concurring); Lee v. State, 318 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Moreno v. State, 418 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). However, in reviewing the quantum and quality of the proofs against Sloan we are content that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981); Bailey v. State, supra. But see Moreno v. State, supra.
Davis v. Alaska, supra and Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129, 88 S.Ct. 748, 19 L.Ed.2d 956 (1968) are relied upon for support of an error per se rule. However, the per se rule of reversal has not been applied in all circumstances. See e.g., United States ex rel. Scarpelli v. George, 687 F.2d 1012, 1014 (7th Cir. 1982); United States v. Gambler, 662 F.2d 834, 840 (D.C. Cir. 1981). See also United States v. Brown, 546 F.2d 166, 172 (5th Cir. 1977).
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.