JIMMY L. MCNEIL AND RUBY L. MCNEIL, APPELLANTS,
v.
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.
Jimmy and Ruby McNeil were convicted of grand theft based on a stolen stereo found in their home. The court reversed their convictions because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law, as the only evidence of guilt was their possession of the stolen property coupled with an uncorroborated informant's prior inconsistent statement that was admissible only for impeachment, not as substantive evidence.
The convictions are reversed because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. Mere possession of stolen property is insufficient to establish guilt when there is an unrefuted, exculpatory, and reasonable explanation for the possession. Since Andrews' prior inconsistent statement was admissible only for impeachment and not as substantive evidence, the only support for conviction was the presumption from possession, which was insufficient given the appellants' credible explanation.
[1] A prior inconsistent statement is admissible for impeachment purposes but not as substantive evidence of guilt unless it meets statutory exceptions.
[2] Mere possession of recently stolen property is insufficient to establish guilt when accompanied by an unrefuted, reasonable, and exculpatory explanation for the possessio…
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“Although the statement was properly admitted for impeachment purposes, it was not substantive evidence of appellants' guilt.”
Establishes that Andrews' prior inconsistent statement could not be used as substantive evidence to prove the appellants' guilt, only to impeach his credibility.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA stolen AM-FM stereo radio-cassette player was found in appellants' home pursuant to a search warrant. The warrant was based on information from Juli…
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 Substantive Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellants were charged with grand theft and convicted upon a jury verdict. Because the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, we reverse.
A stolen AM-FM stereo radio-cassette player was seized from appellants’ home pursuant to the execution of a search warrant. The warrant was issued on the basis of information provided to the police by Julius Andrews, subsequent to his arrest for shoplifting. Andrews told the police that if they would drop his shoplifting charge (he was on probation), he would give them information about other thefts involving more money. He then related that he had gone into Howard’s Discount Store with appellant Jimmy McNeil; that they had removed a toy from its box and put the radio inside; that they then paid for the toy, and walked out with it while Ruby McNeil waited for them in the car. Andrews was ultimately charged with several counts of theft and, prior to appellants’ trial, he informed the prosecuting attorney that he would not testify for the state unless he was granted total immunity.
Therefore, the state attorney moved that the court call Mr. Andrews as its own witness under § 90.615, Florida Statutes, so that the state could impeach him if he testified adversely. § 90.608, Florida Statutes. Defense counsel objected to the procedure, but the motion was granted. The court called Andrews as a witness and questioned him about how the stolen stereo came to be in the appellants’ home. Andrews testified that he had bought the stereo on the street, and had asked appellants to store it for him temporarily, but they had no knowledge that it was stolen. The state then questioned Andrews about his prior inconsistent statements implicating appellants in the theft of the stereo. Andrews responded that he had made the statements against the McNeils because the interrogating officer had indicated that he was more interested in arresting McNeil than Andrews.
It is undisputed that Andrews’ prior inconsistent statement was introduced solely for the purpose of impeaching his in-court testimony pursuant to § 90.608(l)(a).1 Therefore, although the statement was properly admitted for impeachment purposes, it was not substantive evidence of appellants’ guilt. Kimbler v. State, 360 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Pitts v. State, 333 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
Without considering Andrews’ pri-or inconsistent statement as substantive evidence, the only support for the appellants’ conviction lies in the presumption raised by their possession of the recently stolen equipment. § 812.022, Florida Statutes.
However, mere possession of stolen property is insufficient to establish guilt when there is an unrefuted, exculpatory, and not unreasonable explanation for the possession. R.A.L. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Both appellants testified that Andrews had brought the radio to their house and asked them to keep it until he found an apartment to move into. This was an unrefuted, reasonable, exculpatory explanation for the presence of the stolen property in their home, and their possession was therefore insufficient, standing alone, to establish guilt.
Because appellants’ convictions of grand theft are based on insufficient evidence as a matter of law, they are hereby reversed. See Kimbler, supra.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and ZEH-MER, JJ., concur. . This is not a case where a prior statement, made under oath, was introduced as substantive evidence. See Webb v. State, 426 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); § 90.801(2)(a), Fla. Stat.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2005)…he trial court erred in permitting the impeachment of Thomas’s trial testimony with her previous statement. The State compounded the error by impermissibly relying on the impeachment as substantive evidence in closing arguments. See McNeil v. State, 433 So. 2d 1294, 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (reversing conviction based in large part on impeachment evidence improperly considered as substantive evidence). Finally, we conclude that the trial court erred in refusing to provide the co-conspirator hearsay instructio…
-
Austin v. State, 461 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…r adverseness. See Johnson v. State, 178 So. 2d 724, 728 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1965); Hernandez v. State, 156 Fla. 356, 22 So. 2d 781 (1945); and Tipton v. State, 402 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (Smith, R., specially concurring); compare McNeil v. State, 433 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (testimony of witness exculpating defendant was prejudicial to state and witness was therefore adverse — thus, prior unsworn statement was properly admitted for impeachment purposes under Section 90.608 but inadmissible as substa…
-
Jackson v. State, 736 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Valdez v. State, 492 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); J.J. v. State, 463 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); R.M. v. State, 450 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); R.D.S. v. State, 446 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); McNeil v. State, 433 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); R.M. v. State, 412 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); R.A.L. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). II At first blush, it is difficult to reconcile the two lines of cases relied upon by the parties. To properly determine how…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. Moss, 333 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- R. A. L. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Rodriguez v. Rattan, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Webb v. State, 426 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Goldia Kimbler v. State, 360 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)