JULIUS TEDDY DELANIE, 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.
Delanie was convicted of aggravated battery and culpable negligence based on evidence that was improperly used at trial. The appellate court reversed because the prosecution presented no substantive evidence of guilt, only a prior inconsistent statement that was inadmissible for that purpose.
The conviction must be reversed and the appellant discharged because the State presented no substantive evidence of guilt. While a trial court may call a witness and use a prior inconsistent statement to impeach that witness's credibility, such prior statements cannot be used as substantive evidence of guilt.
[1] A prior inconsistent statement of a witness called by the court may be used to impeach the witness's credibility but not as substantive evidence of guilt.
[2] A conviction cannot stand when the State introduces no substantive evidence of the defendant's guilt.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 prior statement can then be used to diminish the credibility of the witness and otherwise impeach his testimony; but it may not be used as substantive evidence.”
Establishes the crucial legal distinction between using prior statements for impeachment versus substantive proof of guilt
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 23, 1977, police responded to appellant's residence and found his girlfriend Barbara Hall bleeding from her left arm and under her left eye. S…
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 Substantive Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated battery and culpable negligence. He contends that his conviction should be reversed because the State introduced no substantive evidence of his guilt. We agree and reverse.
On July 23, 1977, Lakeland Police Officers Morgan, Tallman and Boatner were dispatched to appellant’s residence. On arriving they found Barbara Hall, appellant’s girlfriend, sitting on the front porch bleeding from her left arm and from under her left eye. Ms. Hall told Officer Morgan that she had been struck by a grass sling blade swung by appellant when she raised her left arm in defense. When confronted by police at a neighbor’s house, appellant admitted struggling over the blade and produced it for the officers. Appellant was then taken into custody.
At pre-trial deposition, Ms. Hall’s description of the incident was different. On that occasion she testified that she had initiated the struggle over the blade because appellant had walked into their room with the blade and she feared that he was experiencing an epileptic seizure and she generally exonerated appellant.
Upon trial and at the urging of the prosecutor, the court called Ms. Hall as a court witness. This allowed the prosecutor to introduce evidence of the first version of the incident told by Ms. Hall to the Lake-land police for the purpose of impeaching her trial testimony, which also again exonerated appellant. Other than Ms. Hall’s initial statement, no substantive evidence was introduced indicating appellant’s guilt.
A trial judge can, in his discretion, call a person as a court witness where the witness’ expected trial testimony is inconsistent with a prior statement. McCloud v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1976). The prior statement can then be used to diminish the credibility of the witness and otherwise impeach his testimony; but it may not be used as substantive evidence. Perry v. State, 356 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Nothing was introduced by the State which directly showed appellant to be guilty of the charges. This insufficiency of evidence in appellant’s first trial precludes a new trial. He should therefore be discharged. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S.-, 98 S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978).
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to discharge appellant.
GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 498 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 1986)…d circumstances makes his testimony no more admissible. We are cognizant of the general rule which permits the trial court to call a witness as a court witness if his or her expected testimony conflicts with prior statements.1 See Delante v. State, 362 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). See also McCloud v. State, 835 So. 2d 257, 260 (Fla.1976). That general rule, however, has been clarified by this Court’s recent opinion in Brumbley v. State, 453 So. 2d 381 (Fla.1984). In Brumbley, we held that a party may…
-
Parnell v. State, 500 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ny problem with the rulings in this case, because the matter of calling a witness as a court witness is within the discretion of the trial judge when the witness’ expected trial testimony will be inconsistent with prior statements. Delanie v. State, 362 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), McCloud v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1976). The real question involved here is whether Rumsey’s impeachment testimony was admissible and could be used as substantive evidence, and whether Nelson’s impeachment testimony — wh…
-
Mazzara v. State, 437 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…stimony concerning the statement should have been excluded under the rule that a prior inconsistent statement may not be admitted as substantive evidence, but only for impeachment. Smith v. State, 379 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Delame v. State, 362 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978); Perry v. State, 356 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Pitts v. State, 333 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); and Rankin v. State, 143 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1962). Admittedly, Hoffman’s Michigan statement was not admissible under Section 9…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978)
- Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1978)
- McCLOUD v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1976)
- Glenwood Perry and James Rushin, Jr. v. State, 356 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)