DEXTER SHARED TARVER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissibility Of Prior Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
[*99] PER CURIAM.
Dexter Tarver appeals his convictions for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and armed robbery. We conclude that the defendant’s prior statements at the Arthur hearing * were properly admitted both in the State’s case in chief and for impeachment of defendant after defendant took the stand, under the controlling and indistinguishable authority of Brown v. State, 391 So. 2d 729, 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see also Walker v. State, 495 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the reference to Ms. Lewis was within the permissible scope of the State’s cross-examination and did not constitute a comment upon a defendant’s failure to call witnesses within the meaning of the cases relied on by defendant, Crowley v. State, 558 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Lane v. State, 459 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); and Bayshore v. State, 437 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Affirmed.
*
State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla.1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cruz v. State, 189 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…neral rule, a defendant’s testimony at a former trial is admissible against the defendant at retrial, even if the defendant declines to testify at [*829] the retrial.3 State v. Billie, 881 So. 2d 637, 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). And, in Tarver v. State, 571 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), a defendant’s prior statements at an Arthur 4 hearing were held to be admissible both in the state’s case-in-chief and for impeachment of the defendant, though the Tarver court did not discuss Simmons. Here, because appellant wa…
-
Haynes v. State, 729 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…er of the witnesses involved in the purchase of property which had been stolen was able to identify appellant prior to trial. [*500] Admissions by a party opponent are admissible as substantive evidence. See § 90.803(18), Fla.Stat.; Tarver v. State, 571 So. 2d 98, 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). See also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 803.18 (1998 Edition). The Evidence Code does not codify any constitutional requirements which must be met before inculpatory statements of a criminal defendant are admissible.…
-
State v. Lincoln (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980)
- Mervin Brown v. State, 391 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Jefferson Lane v. State, 459 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Bayshore v. State, 437 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Hajosch v. Keary E. Patterson, 558 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Crowley v. State, 558 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Walker v. State, 495 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)