TYRONE A. JOYCE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 court held that prior inconsistent statements alone are insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal prosecution.
The defendant was convicted of aggravated assault, shooting into a dwelling, and criminal mischief based on impeachment evidence from witnesses who re…
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 Impeachment By Prior Inconsistent Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Tyrone Joyce appeals from judgments of conviction and sentences for aggravated assault, shooting into a dwelling, and criminal mischief. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Joyce was charged with various offenses relating to a drive-by shooting. The State obtained sworn deposition testimony from two witnesses who stated that they had seen Joyce commit the crime. However, during trial those two witnesses recanted their prior testimony, and, when called by the State, denied that the defendant had fired the shots. The State impeached the witnesses with their prior testimony. That impeachment evidence was the only evidence that Joyce had committed the crime. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal; the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant had committed the crimes charged. As a matter of law, “in a criminal prosecution a prior inconsistent statement standing alone is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Moore, 485 So. 2d 1279, 1281 (Fla.1986); see also Santiago v. State, 652 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (prior inconsistent statements by State’s own witness may be used for impeachment but cannot be considered as substantive evidence against defendant).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant Williams v. State, 714 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…’s case rests exclusively on the “prior inconsistent statements” of the victim and her son. In the absence of any independent evidence of guilt, he posits, his convictions must be reversed. State v. Moore, 485 So. 2d 1279 (Fla.1986); Joyce v. State, 664 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Santiago v. State, 652 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The state initially responded that although the statements were, in fact, “prior inconsistent statements,” there was independent evidence of guilt, to-wit:' photographs of t…
-
Rockerman v. State, 773 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ony of either witness admitted for any purpose other than impeachment. “[A] prior inconsistent statement standing alone is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Moore, 485 So. 2d 1279, 1281 (Fla.1986). See Joyce v. State, 664 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Santiago v. State, 652 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); McNeil v. State, 433 So. 2d 1294, 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (holding that “although the statement was properly admitted for impeachment purposes, it was not substantive eviden…
-
McGhee v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…t. See Santiago v. State, 652 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (holding that a State witness’s prior inconsistent statements may be used for impeachment but cannot be considered as substantive evidence against a defendant); accord Joyce v. State, 664 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). To be entitled to postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of 4 trial counsel, McGhee must establish under the familiar Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), standards that his counsel’s performance was…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Greene, 485 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1986)
- Santiago v. State, 652 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)