JERRY MCGEE, JR., 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.
Conviction for attempted armed robbery while masked reversed because trial court erred in excluding defendant's consistent statements under the rule of completeness, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
A trial court errs by excluding a defendant's contemporaneous consistent statements when the state has introduced incriminating aspects of those statements during direct examination, and such error requires reversal when not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] When a state introduces incriminating aspects of a defendant's statements during direct examination, the rule of completeness entitles the defendant to introduce contempo…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“As the state had already introduced the incriminating aspects of the appellant's statements during direct examination, the appellant was entitled to introduce his contemporaneous consistent statements in accordance with the rule of completeness.”
Court's explanation of why the trial court erred in excluding the defendant's consistent statements
Appellant was charged with attempted robbery while masked and armed with a firearm. He sought to introduce testimony regarding statements he made in c…
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 Intent To Steal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges his conviction for attempted robbery while masked and armed with a firearm. He first argues that the trial court .erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the state failed to present sufficient evidence that he intended to steal from the alleged victim, a necessary element of his offense.
We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support this element and that the court properly denied the motion. The appellant next argues that the court erred by excluding certain testimony that he sought to introduce during cross examination of one of the state’s witnesses; in particular, testimony that he had provided statements in conjunction with his confession that were consistent with his theory of innocence. As the state had already introduced the incriminating aspects of the appellant’s statements during direct examination, the appellant was entitled to introduce his contemporaneous consistent statements in accordance with the rule of completeness. See Christopher v. State, 583 So. 2d 642 (Fla.1991).
Because we are unable to say that the court’s error in precluding this testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, see State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986), the appellant’s conviction is reversed and this case is remanded.
ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Christopher v. State, 583 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1991)