STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
FRANK KRUSE, RESPONDENT
PER CURIAM.
We originally accepted jurisdiction to resolve the narrow issue of whether an arrest subsequent to the date of an offense on trial may be used to impeach character testimony, as distinguished from testimony concerning truth and veracity. Holding subsequent arrests are inadmissible, the district court’s decision is consistent with Greenfield v. State, 336 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), and conflicts with no other case on this issue. Accordingly, we find no jurisdictional bgsis and dismiss the petition as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, c.j., overton, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., and ADKINS, J. (Ret.), concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
State v. Townsend, 635 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1994)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Fuller v. State, 540 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Davis v. State, 527 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Ward v. State, 519 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Kruse v. State, 483 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), review dismissed, 507 So. 2d 588 (Fla.1987). The psychologist should not have been allowed to testify regarding the credibility of the child. Townsend also asserts that the trial judge erred in allowing the psychologist to testify to a number of hearsay statements of the child, so…
-
Hadden v. State, 690 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1997)…ode did away with this standard and replaced it with a relevancy standard. See, e.g., Andrews v. State, 533 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), review denied, 542 So. 2d 1332 (1989); Kruse v. State, 483 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), review dismissed, 507 So. 2d 588 (1987); Hawthorne v. State, 470 So. 2d 770, 782-86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (Ervin, J., concurring in part and dissenting-in part). In Kruse, a ease involving the issue of the admissibility of syndrome opinion evidence in a child-abuse prosecution, the F…
-
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, 576 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible. In Kruse v. State, 483 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), cause dismissed, 507 So. 2d 588 (Fla.1987), this court determined from these statutes that there are four requirements for determining the admissibility of expert testimony: (1) that the opinion evidence be helpful to the trier of fact; (2) that the witness be qualified as an expe…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wall v. State, 336 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)