STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
MARIO DELGADO-SANTOS, RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that a prior inconsistent statement made during a police interrogation is not admissible as substantive evidence under section 90.801(2)(a), Florida Statutes, because a police interrogation is not an 'other proceeding'.
The district court reversed the trial court for admitting a prior inconsistent statement made by a witness during a police interrogation as substantiv…
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
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition to review Delgado-Santos v. State, 471 So. 2d 74 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), in which the district court reversed the trial court for admitting as substantive evidence a prior inconsistent statement made by respondent’s alleged accomplice during a police interrogation. We find conflict with Robinson v. State, 455 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. The issue requires interpretation of section 90.801(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), to determine whether this provision of our evidence code permits admission, as substantive evidence at trial, of a trial witness’s prior inconsistent statement made during police interrogation. Prior to the evidence code’s adoption in 1978, such evidence was inadmissible. See Tomlinson v. Peninsular Naval Stores Co., 61 Fla. 453, 55 So. 548 (1911). The evidence code, under section 90.801(2)(a), now permits such prior inconsistent statements that are “given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition.”
In the instant case, the district court thoroughly reviewed this provision’s history and its construction and interpretation by other courts. In accordance with the holding of courts in other jurisdictions and the view of commentators addressing the identical provision, the district court determined that a police interrogation was not intended to be an “other proceeding.” We approve the district court decision and adopt its opinion as our own. In so doing we disapprove Robinson.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1990)…ssible as substantive evidence under section 90.801(2), Florida Statutes (1985), because it was not an “other proceeding” under the provisions of that section. I strongly dissent from that holding and find it not required by State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1986), and Dudley v. State, 545 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1989). I find that the factual situation in this case is distinguishable from Delgado-Santos and Dudley because here the subject statement was given under oath to an assistant state attorney befo…1 / 3
-
Ellis v. State, 622 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1993)…on-gathering activities less formal than a grand jury hearing or deposition. For example, the term “other proceeding” does not include police interrogations or statements obtained during police investigations, even if sworn, State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1986), sworn statements made to defense counsel, Arner v. State, 459 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), review denied, 471 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1985), interviews under oath by Internal Review Service officers, United States v. Day, 789 F. 2d 1217 (6th…
-
Faunce Levon Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2004)…nsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition.” § 90.801(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001) (emphasis added). However, in State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1986), this Court held that a statement given under oath during a police investigation is not a statement given at an “other proceeding” and consequently is not admissible as substantive evidence under section 90.801(2)(a). See also Ellis v. St…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Delgado-Santos v. State, 471 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Robinson v. State, 455 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Tomlinson v. Peninsular Naval Stores Co., 61 Fla. 453 (Fla. 1911)