CARMELO PADILLA
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
CARMELO PADILLA
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2020)
Per_curiam
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Davis v. State, 207 So. 3d 177, 193 (Fla. 2016) (“To be admissible, a prior inconsistent statement must either directly contradict or materially differ from the . . . testimony at trial.” (citing Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561, 569 (Fla. 2004))); Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181, 200 (Fla. 2005) (“Florida courts have held that a witness’s inability to recall making a prior statement is not synonymous with providing trial testimony that is inconsistent with a prior statement.”), receded from on other grounds by State v. Sturdivant, 94 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2012); Espinoza v. State, 37 So. 3d 387, 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2005)
- State v. Sturdivant, 94 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2012)
- Davis v. State of Fla. & Leon Davis (Fla. 2024)
- Moises Espinoza v. State, 37 So. 3d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)