WILLIAM G. HORTON, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Fetherolf, 388 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
  …reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur. .Rankin v. State, 143 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1962); Smith v. State, 379 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Hill v. State, 355 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). . State v. Davis, 243 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1971). . State v. J.T.S. and G.R.W., 373 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).…
• Webb v. State, 426 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
  …n Florida which barred the use of a prior inconsistent statement for substantive purposes, but allowed it for impeachment purposes, was based on the Florida courts’ characterization of such evidence as hearsay. See the cases cited in Smith v. State, 379 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). But the Evidence Code changed many of these common law rules. Section 90.801(2)(a) states that a prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay if the person making the statement testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examinati…
• Santiago v. State, 652 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
  …only evidence offered by the state to substantiate the charge of attempted murder against Santiago was the prior inconsistent statement by its own witness, Oquendo, and that is not enough. State v. Moore, 485 So. 2d 1279 (Fla.1986); Smith v. State, 379 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA), cert, denied, 386 So. 2d 642 (Fla.1980). As we stated in Smith, such prior inconsistent statements may be used for impeachment but cannot be considered as substantive evidence against a defendant. Smith 379 So. 2d at 997. Likewise,…