MERVIN BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Mervin Brown appealed his robbery conviction, arguing that the trial court improperly allowed the State to prove in its case-in-chief that Brown falsely claimed employment as an alibi. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that false exculpatory statements are admissible as substantive evidence of guilt, not merely for impeachment purposes.
The State may introduce evidence of a defendant's false exculpatory statements in its case-in-chief as substantive evidence of consciousness of guilt and guilt itself. Such evidence need not await the defendant's adoption of the alibi or testimony; it is admissible to show the defendant lied about his whereabouts.
[1] Evidence of a defendant's acts or statements calculated to defeat or avoid prosecution is admissible as showing consciousness of guilt.
[2] False exculpatory statements made by a defendant may be used as substantive evidence tending to prove guilt.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Evidence of a defendant's acts or statements calculated to defeat or avoid his prosecution is admissible against him as showing consciousness of guilt.”
Establishes the core legal principle governing admissibility of false exculpatory statements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMervin Brown was charged with robbery. During a voluntary post-arrest interview, Brown stated he was employed by a certain concern on the date of the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse False Exculpatory Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
Mervin Brown contends that we should overturn his robbery conviction because the trial court allowed the State to prove in its case in chief that Brown was not, as he had stated in a voluntary post-arrest interview, employed by a certain concern on the date of the robbery. He flatly tells us that where the State elicits from its own witness the defendant’s alibi, the State may not impeach that alibi unless and until the defendant adopts it or has an opportunity to deny or explain his statement. We just as flatly disagree.
Evidence of a defendant’s acts or statements calculated to defeat or avoid his prosecution is admissible against him as showing consciousness of guilt. See, e. g., Mackiewicz v. State, 114 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 965, 80 S.Ct. 883, 4 L.Ed.2d 879 (1960); Spinkelink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1975), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 3227, 49 L.Ed.2d 1221. See also United States v. Myers, 550 F. 2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1977), appeal after remand, 572 F. 2d 506, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 847, 99 S.Ct. 147, 58 L.Ed.2d 149 (1978); United States ex rel. Royster v. McMann, 292 F.Supp. 116 (E.D.N.Y.1968) (exculpatory statements, when shown to be false, become inculpatory and are to be treated as admissions); Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 16 S.Ct. 895, 40 L.Ed. 1090 (1895); United States v. Boekelman, 594 F. 2d 1238 (9th Cir. 1979); Fox v. United States, 381 F. 2d 125 (9th Cir. 1967); Holt v. United States, 272 F. 2d 272 (9th Cir. 1959) (the destruction, suppression or fabrication of evidence is relevant to prove guilt).
The evidence in the present case was not introduced to impeach Brown, but to show that Brown lied about his whereabouts on the day of the crime. This was substantive evidence tending to prove Brown’s guilt and was admissible in the State’s case in chief. United States v. Merrill, 484 F. 2d 168 (8th Cir. 1973) (where the Government introduced in its case in chief both the defendant’s statement that he had never been in the state where the crime was committed and proof that the defendant had been in the state the day the crime was committed); Matthew v. State, 263 Ind. 672, 337 N.E. 2d 821 (1976) (where the state introduced in its case in chief the defendant’s grand jury testimony that he had been at a certain friend’s house on the night the crime was committed and the friend’s testimony that the defendant was not at her house that night).
See also United States v. Holbert, 578 F. 2d 128 (5th Cir. 1978) (“the [defendant’s] argument overlooks a long line of authority which recognizes that false exculpatory statements may be used not only to impeach, but also as substantive evidence tending to prove guilt.”); United States v. Pistante, 453 F. 2d 412 (9th Cir. 1971) (the defendant’s pre-trial explanations were admissible in the Government’s case in chief to prove consciousness of guilt and unlawful intent, even though defendant was not going to take the stand); Douglas v. State, 89 So. 2d 659 (Fla.1956) (where, in dicta, the court stated that under circumstances where “one accused of a crime might deny guilt and then offer a false alibi, a false denial that he owned a weapon of the type employed in committing the crime or a similar statement that could be disproved independently of the proof of the commission of the crime by the defendant,” proof of such false statement is evidence tending to show the defendant’s guilt).
Brown’s remaining points on appeal have been considered and found to be without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Weston v. State, 452 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…stimony was an impermissible and prejudicial use at trial of an “alias.” We disagree. Clearly, the state was entitled to present this testimony as evidence of a consciousness of guilt of the offense which had just been committed. Cf. Brown v. State, 391 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980); Finlay v. State, 424 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983). The defendant also claims that the trial court failed to make the requisite findings in connection with his sentence to an extended term under the habitual offender law, Sect…
-
Moore v. State, 530 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…iew with the police chief was to show consciousness of guilt and unlawful intent, rather than to impeach. We recognize that exculpatory statements, when shown to be false, are rendered inculpatory and are [*66] treated as admissions. Brown v. State, 391 So. 2d 729, 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). See also Podro v. State, 428 So. 2d 290 (Fia. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 436 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1983). As admissions, the statements may be introduced during the state’s casein-chief as evidence from which guilt may be inferred…
-
Tacoronte v. State, 419 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…h the State’s proof of the commission of the crime. It is only when a defendant’s statement is shown to be false [*795] by proof independent of the proof of the commission of the crime, see Douglas v. State, 89 So. 2d 659 (Fla.1956); Brown v. State, 391 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases collected therein; or by proof of an actual effort to suborn perjury, United States v. Jones, 578 F. 2d 1332, 1338 (10th Cir. 1978), that we allow juries to consider the falsity as additional substantive evidence tendin…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (19 total)
- Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613 (U.S. 1896)
- United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1977)
- Pulliam v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 911 (U.S. 1976)
- Simkins Indus., Inc. v. Moreira, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975)
- Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975)
- Payton v. Payton, 439 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1978)
- Simmons v. United States, 439 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1978)
- Blackburn v. Cochran, 114 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1959)
- MacKiewicz v. State, 114 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1959)
- Holt v. United States, 272 F.2d 272 (9th Cir. 1959)