U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1984

United States v. Nathaniel Pierre York

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided January 12, 1984 · Hatchett, Anderson, Clark

722 F.2d 715; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 26527; 14 Fed. R. Serv. 1492 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Thomas S. Keith, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Pensacola, Fla., for defendant-appellant., Stephen P. Preisser, Pensacola, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Powers v. Target Corporation (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2020)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The only issue presented in this case is whether the district court erred when it refused to make an advance ruling on appellant’s request that the government not be permitted to crossexamine him with regard to his involvement in another incident shortly after commission of the charged offense.

Neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the former Fifth Circuit has directly ruled on this issue. We choose to follow the Eighth and Ninth Circuits which have held that the decision regarding an advance ruling on the admissibility of impeachment evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Rivers, 693 F.2d 52 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Tercero, 640 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1980). We find no abuse of discretion in this case.

Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.