CopyCited 84 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1997 WL 166238
...mony at trial and constituted a prior inconsistent statement properly introduced for impeachment purposes only. State v. Smith,
573 So.2d 306 (Fla.1990); §
90.608, Fla.Stat. (1993). We also agree with the State that the foundational requirements of section
90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1993), were fully satisfied where Harris had the "opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement." As Professor Ehrhardt has explained, "[t]he prior statement is admissible to impeach only if it is in fact inc...
CopyCited 48 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2004 WL 1469337
...Prior to questioning a witness about the contents of a previous inconsistent statement, counsel must call to the witness's attention the time, place, and person to *570 whom the statement was allegedly made. Rowe v. State,
128 Fla. 394,
174 So. 820, 821 (1937); see also Florida Evidence § 614.1. As provided in section
90.614(2), Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement and the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness on it.......
...ent statement). Further, even if the witness admits making a prior statement, the witness should be given an opportunity to explain it, show that he or she was mistaken when it was made, or explain that the prior statement is not inconsistent. Under section 90.614(2), extrinsic evidence is admissible when a witness does not "distinctly admit" making the prior statement....
...This evidence can include a properly authenticated written statement and the testimony of individuals who were present when the statement was made. See id. § 608.4. The record in this case shows that defense counsel laid the proper foundation under section 90.614(2): counsel called to Brittingham's attention the time, place, and person to whom he made the prior inconsistent statements, quoted from the prior statements, and gave Brittingham an opportunity to explain his prior statements....
...Further, the prior statements and Brittingham's in-court testimony were relevant to the issue of Pearce's level of involvement in the shootings. When Brittingham did "not distinctly admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement [was] admissible." § 90.614(2), Fla....
CopyCited 23 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1799760
...July 1, 2004), Appellant contends that impeachment of the victim's statement by inconsistent statement is not possible because the necessary predicate of affording the witness an opportunity to review and explain the statement cannot be established. See § 90.614 Fla....
CopyCited 22 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 434
...Appellant now argues that the court erred in sustaining the state's objection to the introduction of these motions. The motions could not be introduced for purposes of impeachment because Muszynski admitted that he had made the prior inconsistent statements. § 90.614(2), Fla....
CopyCited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...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 et al., Evidence, 30 U....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 712705
...(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995). The remarks quoted in the articles were being offered to impeach de Kalafe's trial testimony that she had never made favorable remarks regarding the Cuban government. The articles were properly admissible for this purpose. § 90.614(2), Fla....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...locked the door because he usually did so. The state opposed the introduction of the tape on the grounds that it was hearsay and improper impeachment, and the court rejected the proffered evidence. We believe that this ruling also constituted error. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1981), provides that extrinsic evidence of a witness' prior inconsistent statement is admissible for purposes of impeachment when a witness, having been directed to his prior statement and offered an opportunity t...
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19299, 2009 WL 4723310
...Ehrhardt, Ehrhardt's Florida Evidence § 103.1, at 5-7 (2009) (listing certain proceedings in which strict evidentiary rules are inapplicable). We note, however, that many of the objected-to statements [1] were admissible for the limited purpose of impeaching a witness's testimony with prior inconsistent statements. See § 90.614, Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1031
...Prior to the testimony of the author of the memorandum, the trial court ruled that it would not allow the written and signed statement for any purpose, including impeachment. A prior written statement which is inconsistent with trial testimony is, with few exceptions, admissible as long as the requirements of section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1985), are met, as they were in this case....
...n testimony the same as if the witness had testified in person. The numerous errors briefly described herein were prejudicial and made for a trial which was manifestly unfair. Reversed and remanded for a new trial on liability and damages. NOTES [1] Section 90.614(2) provides: (2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement and the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate him on it, or the interests of justice otherwise require....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 757
...Although the proffered testimony was hearsay, it was nevertheless admissible, not to prove the truth of Andrew's statements, but as proof that he made the statement. Breedlove v. State,
413 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied,
459 U.S. 882,
103 S.Ct. 184,
74 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982). The state argues that section
90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1983), bars the admissibility of the proffered testimony because Andrew was not afforded the requisite opportunity to explain or deny his prior inconsistent statement....
...Since Andrew simply denied talking to Mrs. Thornes, the fact that defense counsel did not thereafter persist in questioning Andrew about the substance of the alleged prior inconsistent statement does not require the exclusion of the proffered testimony under section 90.614(2)....
...iving his statement, has been called to the time, place, and circumstances of the contradictory statement, so as to afford him opportunity to refresh his memory, and make his answer advisedly." Id. at 58, 59. The rule enunciated above is embodied in Section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1983)....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...The trial court also committed error by permitting a state's rebuttal witness to testify to a prior inconsistent statement of a defense witness over the objection that the defense witness had not been given an opportunity to admit or deny the prior statements. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1979) states in pertinent part: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement and the...
...The state urges that on cross examination the defense witness was given such an opportunity when she was asked generally to whom had she first reported what she had seen regarding the altercation and she failed to mention the rebuttal witness. We *1003 think the plain terms of Section 90.614(2) certainly contemplate a more direct reference to the prior inconsistent statement; without this, there is no genuine opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1434
...mistrial, Carls Markets, Inc. v. Meyer,
69 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1953); Crowell v. Fink,
167 So.2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); and (c) any alleged error in the exclusion of a prior inconsistent statement by the plaintiff was not properly preserved below. See §
90.614(2), Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1816
...on of the witness himself and, if on cross-examination the witness denies, or fails to remember, making such a statement, the fact that the statement was made may be proved by another witness. United States v. Sisto,
534 F.2d 616 (5th Cir.1976); see §
90.614(2), Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2010
...d an opportunity to interrogate the witness on it, or the interests of justice otherwise require. If a witness denies making or does not distinctly admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible ... § 90.614, Fla....
...ous time, the law provides that extrinsic evidence of the prior statement is admissible. See Pugh v. State,
637 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(where witness did not remember questions asked or answers given regarding his previous "critical testimony," section
90.614(2) allows the admission of extrinsic evidence of the "critical testimony."); see also §
90.614(2), Fla....
...hose not to do so. In any event, at the deposition, the defendants identified the time, place, and *1135 entity taking Saez's prior statement and she claimed that she had no recollection of making the statement. This was a sufficient predicate under section 90.614(2) to allow for the admission of Saez's prior inconsistent statement....
...he statement was made to testify to what was said or written, or to use some other acceptable method of authentication. (Emphasis added)" See C. EHRHARDT, FLORIDA EVIDENCE § 614.1 at 523 (1999 ed.). Thus, the purpose in satisfying the requisites of section 90.614, is to prove that the statement is authentic....
...Co., Ltd.,
862 F.Supp. 1251, 1255 (D.N.J.1994)(Coast Guard investigatory report, where the Coast Guard was not a party, was deemed trustworthy and therefore admissible). Moreover, even if the defendants did not meet the foundational requirements of section
90.614(2), which we find they did, the prior inconsistent statement should still have been admitted into evidence because "the interests of justice" otherwise required it. See §
90.614(2). See also Thornes v. State,
485 So.2d at 1359 (technical noncompliance with section
90.614 may be excusable, in the interests of justice); State v....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18442, 1989 WL 248505
...Rock by having Detective Pisani testify: "I asked [Rock] did he have a mustache and I said `Do you know?' Rock responds, `I really couldn't see his face `cause he kind of held it down." The trial court barred this testimony pursuant to Florida Evidence Code § 90.614(2) because defense counsel had failed to lay a proper predicate for the introduction of impeachment testimony. (R. 2660-64). Florida Evidence Code § 90.614(2) requires: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement and the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate him on it ......
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1671517
...edibility with her prior inconsistent statements contained in what the prosecutor described as a sworn police report, purportedly made by Louella at the police station the day following the incident involved here. Compatible with the requirements of section 90.614, Florida Statutes, the prosecutor showed the document to Louella, but she steadfastly denied that the statements in the document accurately reflected the statements she had made to the police....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 526083
...[6] The identical exculpatory testimony was available through appellant. [7] For this discussion we accept the question as an adequate predicate to make extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement admissible to impeach the witness' credibility. See § 90.614(2) Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 712590
...Defendants contend that the trial court unduly limited their impeachment of the victim. As we view the transcript, the court did, in fact, allow counsel to ask the victim about his prior deposition testimony after the contents of his prior statements had been disclosed to him. See § 90.614, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2450
...The testimony could have been introduced to impeach Jolly by prior inconsistent statements. §
90.608(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1985). However, as presented, the testimony was inadmissible because of the failure to first afford Jolly an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statements. §
90.614(2)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...ny the prior statement. Before a prior inconsistent statement may be admitted in evidence, the witness allegedly making the statement must be asked if he made the statement and be given the opportunity to explain, admit or deny making the statement. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1981); Hutchinson v....
...183 (1820), is to the effect that a witness cannot be contradicted concerning his own prior inconsistent statement unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny it. This is an ancient rule of fairness to witnesses and is the historical basis for section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1981)....
...because it directed Brian to his statement to the investigating police officer at the time and place of the accident. (3) At trial there was no specific objection on this ground as required by the contemporaneous objection rule and any violation of section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1981), was not preserved for, or argued on, appeal.
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 724024
...rded an opportunity to interrogate the witness on it, or the interests of justice otherwise require. If a witness denies making or does not distinctly admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. § 90.614(2)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...1977). However, the trial court erred in permitting the State's rebuttal witness to testify to appellant's prior inconsistent statements over his objection that he had not been given the opportunity to admit, deny, or explain the prior statements. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that a prior inconsistent statement is inadmissible unless a witness is first afforded the opportunity to explain or deny the statement....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 5255
...f the substance of the prior inconsistent statement, the time and place the statement was made, and the person to whom the statement was made. See Garcia v. State,
351 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied,
361 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1978). See also, §
90.614(2), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 66569
...ent made by Goble to McDonald that Goble did not believe Chaudoin killed the Doyles, but if he did kill them, they deserved it. Chaudoin argues this was error because Goble was not given an opportunity to admit, deny or explain making the statement. Section 90.614(2) provides: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement.......
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29734, 2005 WL 2406040
...Muszynski's inconsistent statement at trial that he was never hospitalized. ( Id. at 1125.) The court denied admission of the documents, concluding that Mr. Muszynski had not denied making the prior statements (which would have permitted the entry of the documents under section 90.614 of the Florida evidence code), but had admitted to making them and had admitted they were untrue....
...at fundamental right." The Florida Supreme Court concluded that "[t]he motions could not be introduced for purposes of impeachment because Muszynski admitted that he had made the prior inconsistent statements." Jennings III,
512 So.2d at 173 (citing §
90.614, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...conclusions were based on inadmissible hearsay accounts of incident). We reject appellees' argument that this testimony was not hearsay because it was used only for impeachment of Mr. Cashwell by proof of a prior inconsistent statement, pursuant to § 90.614(2), Florida Statutes. Section 90.614(2) provides, in pertinent part: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement and the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness on it, or the interests of justice otherwise require. If a witness denies making or does not distinctly admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. § 90.614(2), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 569, 2017 WL 1954975, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 1067
attention to the prior inconsistent statement. See §
90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2012); Pearce, 880 So.2d at 570
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 35439
...n the manner it came up during the trial we are presently reviewing. If we must reach the issue, however, I agree with appellant that the trial court erred in admitting this evidence. The state failed to establish the essential predicate required by section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1987), by first confronting the witness with the particular statement, and the time, place and person to whom it was made, and evidence of an inconsistent extrinsic statement by the witness is admissible only if it i...
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9210, 2010 WL 2539429
...do not qualify for admission as substantive evidence under section
90.801(2)(a)). Evidence of a prior inconsistent statement that is not admissible as substantive evidence under section
90.801(2)(1) is still admissible for impeachment purposes under section
90.614, Florida Statutes, as long as a proper foundation is laid for admission of the evidence....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...The absence of the declarant from the courtroom together with the fact that the inconsistent statement was made subsequent to the hearsay statement, practically precludes the opponent from calling an inconsistent statement to the attention of the hearsay declarant. Therefore, it would be impossible to comply with the Section 90.614 requirement that before extrinsic evidence of a prior consistent statement is admissible, the witness must be given the opportunity to admit, deny or explain making the statement....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1760236
...With that ruling, the evidentiary portion of the trial concluded and the prosecutor began his closing argument. He argued the importance of the invoice and the credibility of Dr. Buchan at length. The admission of the invoice in this manner was error. Section 90.614(1), "Prior statements of witnesses," provides: (1) When a witness is examined concerning the witness's prior written statement or concerning an oral statement that has been reduced to writing, the court, on motion of the adverse party,...
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 2212706
...made. See Pearce,
880 So.2d at 569-70. Because the State never presented Claflin the opportunity to address the prior statement, the State was not permitted to introduce extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement. See id. at 570 (quoting §
90.614(2))....
...The testimony of the investigator concerning the statement made to him by Steven Claflin that was different from his trial testimony was admissible as extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement, so long as the proper predicate had been laid as required by section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (2005)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 3428273
presented during trial.” (citation omitted)); §
90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2015) (providing that extrinsic
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2152915
...Purdy, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 90.614(2), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 3868
extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. §
90.614(2). “Prior to questioning a witness about the
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2255, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15839
statutory prerequisite for such impeachment. Section
90.614(2); Florida Statutes (1981), requires that
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 7569
PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See §
90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). ORFINGER, TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
denied giving it to the detective, pursuant to section
90.614, Florida Statutes (2017), the detective could
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...o the police on rebuttal for the avowed purpose of impeachment, where the statement was procured from the defendant in violation of Miranda, and the state failed to establish any predicate for the statement's introduction, in direct contravention of Section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1979)." The appeal on this point is well taken and we reverse....
...ndings of voluntariness pursuant to Harris v. New York . It is a well established rule in Florida that a witness' prior statements cannot be used for impeachment purposes unless an adequate predicate has first been laid. This rule is now codified in Section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1979): Prior statements of witnesses....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1663, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9139
out-of-court statements to Deputy Kahl, as required by section
90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1983).1 Not once during
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 3605605, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11175
...ecollection and credibility, and
had an opportunity to cross-examine witness at first hearing). We also
find no error in the trial court’s ruling not to allow the use of certain
portions of victim one’s deposition as inconsistent statements. See
§ 90.614(2), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
person to whom the statement was allegedly made. §
90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2018); Pearce,
880 So. 2d. at
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 37679
...If the trial court again concludes that summary denial is proper, it must attach those portions of the record which demonstrate appellant is not entitled to relief. Reversed and remanded. THREADGILL, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 478, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6705
inconsistent statement made by a prosecution witness, §
90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1983), we deem the error harmless
