COUTO v. STATE (2025)

Carlos Couto appeals his conviction and sentence for first-degree grand theft. Couto asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by (i) limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of the victim,¹ and (ii) limiting defense counsel's closing argument.² The trial court was well within its discretion in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of the victim because defense counsel's line of questioning concerned an area neither germane to the victim's testimony nor relevant to Couto's theory of defense. See Smith v. State, 38 So. 3d 871, 872-73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting defense counsel's closing argument because defense counsel's argument was outside the scope of the evidence. See Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179, 208 (Fla. 2020).

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See Perez v. State, 949 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“On appeal, we review a trial court's limitation of cross-examination for an abuse of discretion.”).

2.   See Bigham v. State, 995 So. 2d 207, 215 (Fla. 2008) (“It is within the trial judge's discretion to determine when an attorney's argument is improper, and such determination will not be upset absent abuse of discretion by [the] lower court judge.”).

PER CURIAM.