CHARLES BRIGHT, JR., 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.
Charles Bright Jr. was convicted of second-degree murder and appealed on grounds of insufficient evidence and improper admission of prior inconsistent statement testimony. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence supported the verdict and any evidentiary error was harmless.
The conviction was supported by competent substantial evidence. Any error in admitting the prior inconsistent statement testimony was harmless because the witness involved had no knowledge of the circumstances of the shooting, and his testimony was immaterial to the issue of guilt.
[1] A conviction will be affirmed when supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] A witness's testimony regarding events occurring before a shooting, which does not bear on the circumstances of the shooting or the defendant's guilt, is immaterial.
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 conviction and judgment were supported by competent substantial evidence.”
Establishes the sufficiency of evidence standard and affirms the trial court's judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA witness saw two men in altercation outside a building at night, heard them arguing over a debt, and heard a gunshot before the men ran in different …
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 Predicate For Impeachment cases and more on FLexlaw
On appeal by the defendant from conviction for second degree murder reversal is sought on a claim of insufficiency of the evidence and a contention that the admission of testimony as to a prior inconsistent statement of a witness was error for the claimed reason that no predicate was laid therefor. On consideration thereof we find no error, and affirm.
The conviction and judgment were supported by competent substantial evidence. The killing occurred outside of a building, in the night time. A witness related that the two men were seen by her together, partially obscured by a stairway and by the poor lighting; that they were heard in altercation over a debt owed by the defendant to the victim; that a gunshot was fired and the men ran off in different directions, and that the victim did not proceed far and subsequently fell to the ground. It appears he remained there until he expired, having been shot in the back.
The witness involved in the question relating to prior inconsistent statement was not present at the killing and knew nothing about the circumstances thereof. His testimony was to the effect that he had been with the victim early in the evening, where he was drinking and the victim was gambling, until fifteen minutes before the shooting occurred; that he next saw the victim when he was on the ground, after having been shot; that after the shooting, when he observed people running to the scene he did likewise, stopping, however, to telephone for an ambulance. On *11cross-examination at trial that witness was asked if he had not been taken to the police station for questioning, to which he assented. He was asked if he recalled having been questioned there by police, to which he answered affirmatively. He then was asked, and denied, if he had there stated that he had not seen or been with the victim earlier prior to the shooting. In our view that was substantial if not full compliance with the requirements of § 90.-10 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. requiring, as a predicate for impeachment by prior inconsistent statement, that the witness be informed of “the circumstances of the supposed statement sufficient to designate the particular occasion,” and “be asked whether or not he made such statements.” Moreover, the testimony of the witness in question was immaterial, in the sense that it had no bearing on the circumstances of the shooting or the issue of guilt of the accused. Therefore, if it should be considered that the prior inconsistent statement evidence was allowed without adequate predicate, the error would have been harmless in the circumstances of this case.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nowlin v. State, 346 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1977)…nity must be afforded the defendant to refresh his memory, to make intelligent answers, and to offer such explanations as he may desire. Brown v. State, 46 Fla. 159, 35 So. 82 (1903); Rowe v. State, 128 Fla. 394, 174 So. 820 (1937); Bright v. State, 250 So. 2d 10 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); Whitley v. State, 265 So. 2d 99 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Walter v. State, 272 So. 2d 180 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Jones v. State, 281 So. 2d 398 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); see Florida Evidence Code, Section 90.614(2) (effective July 1, 1977); Berger…
-
Bright v. State, 257 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…tion for writ of habeas corpus which we elect to treat as a statement of points in his pending appeal. In this appeal, appellant attempts to argue points raised in the original appeal from his judgment and conviction. Bright v. State, Fla.App.1971, 250 So. 2d 10. We will not consider those points which were raised and decided in the original appeal. Carter v. State, Fla.App.1970, 242 So. 2d 737 and Mears v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 212. Appellant’s allegation that his conviction was based on perjur…
-
Morrice Jones v. State, 281 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…he made such statements. . Smith v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 525; Lindberg v. State, 1938, 134 Fla. 786, 184 So. 662; Kilgore v. State, 1915, 69 Fla. 397, 68 So. 378; Brown v. State, 1903, 46 Fla. 159, 35 So. 82; Bright v. State, Fla.App.3d 1972, 250 So. 2d 10; Urga v. State, Fla.App.2d 1958, 104 So. 2d 43.…