State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
47 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Otton (wash, 2016-06-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Otton
Wash. · 2016 · confidence medium
Under that test, an “ ‘other proceeding’ ” does not ever include a “police interrogation.” State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So. 2d 1199, 1199 (Fla. 1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Otton
Wash. · 2016 · confidence medium
Under that test, an '"other proceeding"' does not ever include a "police interrogation." State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So. 2d 1199, 1199 (Fla. 1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) S.L. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Interpreting this provision, the Florida Supreme Court recognized that a statement given during a police investigation is not a statement given at an “other proceeding.” Pearce v. State, 880 So.2d 561, 569 (Fla.2004) (citing State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So.2d 1199, 1199 (Fla.1986)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SL v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Interpreting this provision, the Florida Supreme Court recognized that a statement given during a police investigation is not a statement given at an "other proceeding." Pearce v. State, 880 So.2d 561, 569 (Fla. 2004) (citing State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So.2d 1199, 1199 (Fla.1986)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Gross
N.J. · 1990 · confidence medium
E.g., State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So.2d 1199, 1199 (Fla.1986); State v. Demery, 331 N.W.2d *9 7, 11-12 (N.D.1983); State v. Spadafore, 220 S.E.2d 655, 664 (W.Va.1975).
cited Cited "see" State v. Sims
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So.2d 1199 (Fla.1986) (holding that a police interrogation is not a “proceeding” within the meaning of the statute).
discussed Cited "see" McNeal v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So.2d 1199 (Fla.1986), adopting Delgado-Santos v. State, 471 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). 3.
discussed Cited "see" Smith v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Delgado-Santos, 497 So.2d 1199 ; see also Ellis v. State, 622 So.2d 991 (Fla.1993). [7] It appears undisputed that the person identified by the witnesses was Smith. [8] I note that there are circumstances where out-of-court statements as the sole evidence of guilt have been determined insufficient to support a guilty verdict.
cited Cited "see" Bacon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So.2d 1199 (Fla.1986); Parnell v. State, 500 So.2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Smith v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Delgado-Santos v. State, 471 So.2d 74 , 78 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), aff'd, 497 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 1986). (d) Nor was there error in the failure to exclude portions of those statements pertaining to defendant's prior drug use.
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Mario DELGADO-SANTOS, Respondent.
67419.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct 30, 1986.
497 So. 2d 1199
Overton.
Cited by 37 opinions  |  Published

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

Arthur Carter and John H. Lipinski, Sp. Asst. Public Defenders, Miami, for respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a petition to review Delgado-Santos v. State, 471 So.2d 74 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), in which the district court reversed the trial court for admitting as substantive evidence a prior inconsistent statement made by respondent's alleged accomplice during a police interrogation. We find conflict with Robinson v. State, 455 So.2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

The issue requires interpretation of section 90.801(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), to determine whether this provision of our evidence code permits admission, as substantive evidence at trial, of a trial witness's prior inconsistent statement made during police interrogation. Prior to the evidence code's adoption in 1978, such evidence was inadmissible. See Tomlinson v. Peninsular Naval Stores Co., 61 Fla. 453, 55 So. 548 (1911). The evidence code, under section 90.801(2)(a), now permits such prior inconsistent statements that are "given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition."

In the instant case, the district court thoroughly reviewed this provision's history and its construction and interpretation by other courts. In accordance with the holding of courts in other jurisdictions and the view of commentators addressing the identical provision, the district court determined that a police interrogation was not intended to be an "other proceeding." We approve the district court decision and adopt its opinion as our own. In so doing we disapprove Robinson.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.