KENNETH ERIC HALL, APPELLANT,

v.

LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Austin v. State, 461 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
  …as 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 substantive evidence under Section 90.801(2)(a)); and Mazzara v. State, 437 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (prior statement not admissible under Section 90.-801(2)(a) but admissible under Section 90.608(2)). Under the circumstances of this case, it was impermissible to use the expedient of calling Mincey as a court witness under Sect…
• Delgado-Santos v. State, 471 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
  …the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition. ... Since Ortiz testified at trial and his previous statement, which was violently inconsistent with his trial testimony, was under oath, compare, Mazzara v. State, 437 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 444 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1984); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), the determinative issue is whether it was given at an “other proceeding” and thus justified its substantive admissibi…
• Kingery v. State, 523 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
  …adverseness, his prior inconsistent statements are admissible for impeachment purposes, but may not be used as substantive evidence. Jackson v. State, 451 So. 2d at 463; Austin v. State, 461 So. 2d 1380 at 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Mazzara v. State, 437 So. 2d 716 at 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), Judge Nimmons, specially concurring. When evidence is inadmissible for one purpose, but admissible for another, the court, “upon request, is required to instruct the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence i…