SHAWN CARLOS CARPENTER, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed probation revocation where the victim's trial testimony contradicted her police statement, but the state failed to establish the prior inconsistent statement and such evidence alone cannot sustain a probation violation.
A prior inconsistent statement, even if properly established, is insufficient to sustain a probation violation.
[1] A prior inconsistent statement is insufficient evidence to sustain a probation violation, even when properly established.
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“a prior inconsistent statement is insufficient to sustain a violation of probation”
Court's holding regarding the evidentiary standard for probation violations
Carpenter was accused of pushing a victim during an altercation at her home. At the violation hearing, the victim testified she was accidentally pushe…
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 Evidentiary Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Shawn Carpenter appeals a judgment and sentence following a revocation of probation. The probation violation concerned a skirmish that occurred at the alleged victim’s home. At the violation hearing, the victim was asked, “And during that altercation, you ended up being pushed by Mr. Carpenter; isn’t that correct?” The victim responded, “No. Actually what happened was, I was calling 911, they were fighting, I got in be — tried to get in between them, and got pushed. And then the other guy fell on me.” On cross-examination, the victim stated that Mr. Carpenter did not intentionally touch or strike her and any contact was accidental. Apparently, the victim’s original statement to the police reflected that she called 911 when her former boyfriend and Mr. Carpenter began fighting and Mr. Carpenter subsequently pushed her and tried to push the phone out of her hand. Although the prosecutor showed the victim her original statement and questioned her in an attempt to impeach her testimony, no direct response was ever obtained.
The victim’s purported prior inconsistent statement was not established and even had it been, a prior inconsistent statement is insufficient to sustain a violation of probation. Shaw v. State, 710 So. 2d 182,184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
REVERSED.
ORFINGER, TORPY, and COHEN, JJ., concur.