JAMES BERNARD DAVIS, APPELLANT,
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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Davis's robbery conviction, holding that the trial court erred in admitting an out-of-court statement from a witness who testified he had no knowledge of the crime, and in admitting details of the witness's prior conviction. The court found these errors were not harmless and remanded for a new trial.
The trial court erred in admitting the out-of-court statement because the state cannot impeach its own witness with a prior inconsistent statement absent unexpected and prejudicial in-court testimony, and hearsay statements do not become admissible merely by having a witness claim lack of knowledge. The court also erred in admitting details of the witness's prior conviction. These errors were not harmless.
[1] A party may not impeach its own witness with a prior inconsistent statement unless the witness's in-court testimony is unexpected and prejudicial.
[2] Hearsay statements are not admissible as impeachment evidence when the witness testifies to a lack of knowledge or memory of the events in question.
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“The state may not impeach its witness with a prior inconsistent statement in the absence of unexpected and prejudicial in-court testimony.”
Establishes the core rule prohibiting the state from using prior inconsistent statements to impeach its own witness without proper justification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was convicted of robbery. The state called a witness at trial who had been convicted as an accessory after the fact to the robbery. The witness …
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 Conviction Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We reverse the defendant’s robbery conviction. The state called a witness at trial who had been convicted as an accessory after the fact to the robbery. The witness’ only testimony was that he had no knowledge about the crime and could not remember the events in question. The court declared the witness hostile. The state was then permitted to introduce evidence of a prior out-of-court statement by the witness, in which he had stated to the police that he had driven the defendant to the scene of the crime. In that statement the witness said that the defendant told him about the crime when the defendant returned to the car. The state was also permitted to introduce the details of the criminal charges filed against the witness.
It was error to admit the out-of-court statement of the witness. The state may not impeach its witness with a prior inconsistent statement1 in the absence of unexpected and prejudicial in-court testimony. See Jackson v. State, 498 So. 2d 906 (Fla.1986). Hearsay statements that are otherwise inadmissible do not become admissible as impeachment by the device of placing a witness on the stand to testify that he has no knowledge of the facts. Jackson v. State; Everett v. State, 530 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Kingery v. State, 523 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Further, there is no merit in the state’s argument that the statements were the statements of a co-conspirator. See Nelson v. State, 490 So. 2d 32 (Fla.1986); Moore v. State, 503 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Thomas v. State, 349 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 987 (Fla.1977).
It was also error to admit the details of the prior conviction and sentence of the witness. Parker v. State, 458 So. 2d 750 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1088, 105 S.Ct. 1855, 85 L.Ed.2d 152 (1985); Thomas v. State, 202 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). We find Williamson v. State, 511 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1098, 99 L.Ed.2d 261 (1988), relied on by the state, to be inapposite.
We cannot say that these errors were harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Therefore, the judgment and sentence are reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. . We note that the state did not argue that the statements were admissible as substantive evidence. Therefore, State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1986), and Tisdale v. State, 498 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (en banc), rev. denied, 506 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1987), are not controlling.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dalvon Deon Lawrence v. State, 274 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited (14 total)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Parker v. State, 458 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1984)
- Jackson v. State, 498 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1986)
- Finney v. Georgia, 470 U.S. 1088 (U.S. 1985)
- Williamson v. State, 511 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1987)
- Kingery v. State, 523 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Thomas v. Maryland, 470 U.S. 1088 (U.S. 1985)
- Thomas v. State, 202 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Nelson v. State, 490 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1986)