Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
David Michael Carnright v. The State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
See Elmer v. State, 114 So. 3d 198, 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“When the witness does not ‘distinctly admit’ making the prior statement, including when he or she claims an inability to remember it, extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove that the statement was made.”); Pugh v. State, 637 So. 2d 313, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (reversing and remanding for new trial where court improperly excluded use of pretrial deposition to impeach witness who “did not distinctly admit” to making inconsistent statement).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pearce v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Fla. · 2004 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Pugh v. State, 637 So.2d 313, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (finding that error in not admitting portion of pretrial deposition as prior inconsistent statement to impeach key prosecution witness was not harmless as this was only witness to claim defendant was directly involved in robbery and holding gun); Kimble v. State, 537 So.2d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (same as to prior inconsistent statement of witness-victim).
discussed
Cited "see"
MBL Life Assur. Corp. v. Suarez
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
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. Stat.("[i]f a witness ... does not distinctly admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Elmer v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
When the witness does not “distinctly admit” making the prior statement, including when he or she claims an inability to remember making it, extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the statement was made. § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat.; see also Pugh v. State, 637 So.2d 313, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).