HENRY GREEN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed robbery conviction, holding that jury instruction on prior inconsistent statements was properly refused because the witness's inconsistency occurred within trial testimony rather than before trial.
A jury instruction on prior inconsistent statements under Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 2.04(8) does not apply when a witness's inconsistent statements are made during trial testimony rather than before trial.
[1] A jury instruction on prior inconsistent statements applies only to statements made before trial that contradict trial testimony, not to inconsistencies within a witness'…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry Green was convicted of robbery after a jury trial. A state witness gave testimony at trial that was allegedly inconsistent with other statements…
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 Prior Inconsistent Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Henry Green appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence for robbery entered below after an adverse jury verdict. His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury in accord with Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 2.04(8) relating to a witness’s prior inconsistent statement as a relevant factor in assessing the witness’s credibility. It is asserted that this instruction was relevant to this case because it directly pertained to the testimony of a state s witness who allegedly gave contrary statements under oath at the trial of this cause. We disagree and affirm.
The requested instruction relates solely to a statement made by a witness prior to trial which is inconsistent with his present trial testimony. It has no application to a statement, as here, made by a witness during his testimony at trial, which testimony is inconsistent with the witness’s later trial testimony. See generally McCormick On Evidence § 34, at 73-75 (3d ed. 1984). Such alleged internally inconsistent trial testimony is, of course, a proper factor for the jury to consider in weighing a witness’s credibility, but the defendant requested no specific charge thereon. There was no error, then, in refusing to give the requested charge on prior inconsistent statements as it had no application to this case.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
World Aviation Corp. v. Precision Standard, Inc., 641 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…blished the absence of any genuine issues of material fact. See Proprietors Ins. Co. v. Siegel, 410 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Moreover, World Aviation has failed to show the existence of any genuine issue of material fact. See Ratner v. Garson, 475 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The summary judgment entered in favor of PSI is affirmed.…