Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...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...

...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....

...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....

...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....

...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....

...(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....

...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...

...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....

...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....

...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)....

...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....

...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....

...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....

...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....

...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 ......

...he began to notice water intrusion around the doors and windows at the end of the construction process. Although the scientist’s hearsay testimony is admissible as extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the homeowner under section 90.614, Florida Statutes, his testimony does not go to a disputed issue of material fact....

...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....

...tion concerning the statement and the statement is: (a) Inconsistent with the declarant's testimony and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition”) (emphasis added). See also § 90.614, Fla....

...[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....

...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....

...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)....

...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.

...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)....

...ed for the truth of the matter asserted. See Marshall v. State, 68 So.3d 374, 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). If a witness cannot recall making the prior inconsistent statement, the fact that the statement was made may be proved by another witness. See id. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that before extrinsic evidence of the contents of the prior statement is admissible, the cross-examiner must ask the witness whether he or she made the prior statement and give the witness the opportunity to admit, explain, or deny making the statement. 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....

...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....

...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....

...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.......

...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....

...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....

...st be laid.” Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561, 569 (Fla. 2004). Laying the proper foundation to impeach a witness with a prior inconsistent statement necessarily requires calling the witness’s attention to the prior inconsistent statement. See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2012); Pearce, 880 So. 2d at 570 (explaining that defense counsel laid the proper foundation under section 90.614(2) by “call[ing] to [the witness’s] attention the time, place, and person to whom [the witness] made the prior inconsistent statements, quot[ing] from the prior statements, and g[iving the witness] an opportunity to explain his...

...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...

...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....

...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....

...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,...

...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)....

...witness’s present testimony”); Wilcox v. State, 143 So. 3d 359, 383 (Fla. 2014) (“To be inconsistent, a prior statement must either directly contradict or materially differ from the testimony presented during trial.” (citation omitted)); § 90.614(2), Fla....

...Subsection 90.608(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that a party may attack a witness’s credibility by introducing statements of the witness that are inconsistent with her present testimony. The procedure a party must follow to introduce extrinsic evidence 1 of such prior inconsistent statements is found at section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Defense counsel contended that LM told the detective she voluntarily entered the house at Mills’ invitation. Despite the fact that LM may have “opened the door” to this area, defense counsel was still required to lay the proper foundation for the introduction of the detective’s testimony. § 90.614(2), Fla....

...The defendant appeals his conviction. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow into evidence a portion of a pretrial deposition as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach William Cure, the key prosecution witness, on critical testimony. We agree. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1991), 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 and the opposing party...

...dmissible. During cross-examination, William Cure testified that he did not remember the questions he was asked nor the answers he gave during his deposition. He did not distinctly admit to making the prior inconsistent statement. Accordingly, under section 90.614(2), extrinsic evidence of this statement, which is contained in the transcript of the deposition testimony, is admissible....

...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....

...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)....

...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....

...Appellant objected to Hemmant’s testimony at trial and raised this issue in his appeal. Without deciding the issue, we note that Ryan was never asked on direct or cross-examination to “explain or deny the prior statement” prior to the admission of his hearsay statements as required under section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes....

...Ryan never testified whether he believed his mother was alive or dead, so his trial testimony was not materially different from his prior statement, and extrinsic evidence of the prior statement was inadmissible. The State also made no effort to lay a proper predicate for the admission of the statement under section 90.614(2)....

statutory prerequisite for such impeachment. Section 90.614(2); Florida Statutes (1981), requires that

...of a witness.” Id. Section 90.608(1), Florida Statutes (2008), allows for the admission of prior inconsistent statements. However, prior inconsistent statements may only be used to impeach the testifying witness’s own testimony. See id. (citing § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2008)) (explaining the requirement in section 90.614(2) that the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain the inconsistent statement). Here, under section 90.614(2) and Rodriguez, the trial court correctly barred defense counsel from attempting to impeach the victims’ testimony through a deputy who interviewed the victims....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 90.614, Fla.Stat....

...Upon prompting by the court, the State asked to have Juno’s statement admitted into evidence. The court asked E.P.W. whether he had any objections. Defense counsel said he did object. The court overruled the objection and admitted the statement into evidence under section 90.614(1), Florida Statutes: (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, shall order the statement to be shown to the witness or its contents disclosed to him or her....

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 90.614(2), Fla....

...records linked to the number were not authenticated because the subscriber’s name was the name of appellant’s mother. The court found that although appellant’s girlfriend either did not remember appellant’s number or denied giving it to the detective, pursuant to section 90.614, Florida Statutes (2017), the detective could testify about the statement that was made by the girlfriend to the detective....

...phone records, defense counsel renewed his objections. He argued that the detective’s testimony, i.e., that the girlfriend told the detective appellant’s number, was a prior inconsistent statement; however, a prior inconsistent statement admitted under section 90.614 could not be used as substantive evidence if it was not a sworn statement that was given during a prior proceeding....

...State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). However, whether evidence falls under the statutory definition of hearsay or is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule are questions of law reviewed de novo. Id. The trial court relied on section 90.614, Florida Statutes (2017), in admitting into evidence the girlfriend’s statement to the detective regarding appellant’s phone number....

...The court allowed the State to use the statement to admit the phone records that were linked to that number; thus, the State used the statement as substantive evidence. The court erred because the statement could be used, if the State laid the proper foundation, for only impeachment purposes. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes, provides in 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...

...substantive evidence, because it was not given under oath at another proceeding, as required by section 90.801(2)(a), Florida Statutes. Id. at 1107. Furthermore, the State could not use the statement to impeach the witness, as the prosecutor did not lay the proper foundation under section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes....

...of that conversation, are classic examples of hearsay, as defined by section 90.801(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1993). The state has not cited any exception to the hearsay rule which would make either admissible. Allowing the evidence in also violated section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1993), prohibiting admission of prior inconsistent statements of a witness unless the witness is first “afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement and the opposing party is afforded an opport...

...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....

PER CURIAM. Andrew Pender appeals his conviction for purchase or possession with intent to purchase cocaine. We conclude that the trial court’s evidentiary ruling was consistent with section 90.614, Florida Statutes (2002); see also Charles W....

...2 The subject matter of the question was proper, since the attorney was trying to lay the foundation for introducing extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by giving the officer “an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement.” § 90.614(2), Fla....

...told appellant’s mother. See Rodriguez v. State, 65 So.3d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“When a witness at trial does not remember the earlier ‘inconsistent’ statement, the witness does not ‘distinctly admit making’ the statement under section 90.614(2).” (citation omitted)). Once defense counsel had established entitlement to introduce the mother’s extrinsic evidence of the prior statement under section 90.614(2), the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing him to recall the mother....

rebuttal, absent the foundation required by Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes, which provides: (2) Extrinsic

...strikingly similar facts. The affidavit, thus, showed the bias of Dr. Spiegel to the extent that he believed if Watkins’ “drop” was not charted in the medical records, then it must not have happened. See § 90.608, Fla. Stat. (1995). Moreover, section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1995) specifically allows extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement if a witness denies making or does not distinctly admit making a prior inconsistent statement, which is what happened here....

...We conclude that the trial court committed error in permitting the rebuttal testimony because the state, during its cross-examination of defendant, did not lay the proper predicate for impeachment based upon the prior out-of-court statements to Deputy Kahl, as required by section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...This was also error. We do not read that decision as leaving the determination of whether the instruction shall be given to the broad discretion of the trial court. The state argues that the usual predicate for impeachment was not required in view of the provision in section 90.614(2) that “this subsection is not applicable to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in s....

...First, the state contends that defendant failed to make sufficient objections to the rebuttal testimony to preserve the errors for appellate review. We feel constrained to point out that defense counsel did not articulate the objection to the rebuttal testimony in explicit terms of an insufficient predicate, as required by section 90.614(2), but only on grounds that the admission of the testimony was “prejudicial” to defendant....

...nsel. Moreover, the statements testified to by Deputy Kahl were ambiguous at best and appeared to us to be more corroborative of defendant’s claim of self-defense than inconsistent with his testimony. AFFIRMED. SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . Section 90.614(2) reads: (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....

...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....

...ts. Pearce, 880 So. 2d at 569 (internal citations omitted). A foundation must be laid before impeaching with an inconsistent statement by calling to the witness’s attention the time, place, and person to whom the statement was allegedly made. § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2018); Pearce, 880 So. 2d. at 569–70. “If [the] witness denies making or does not distinctly admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible.” § 90.614(2), Fla....

been asked if she had made such statements. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes. There was sufficient

been admitted as impeachment evidence under section 90.614. Without regard to the basis for its admission

...troduction of a prior inconsistent statement when the witness says that he does not remember the earlier statement. By claiming such a lack of memory, the witness does not “distinctly admit” the prior inconsistent statement within the meaning of section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (2009), so that extrinsic evidence of the statement is admissible as impeachment....

...at 569 (Internal citation omitted). Here, the victim’s hospital statement directly contradicted his trial testimony that Rodriguez shot him, so it was “inconsistent” within the meaning of section 90.608(1). Next, the defense satisfied the requirement of section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (2008) by directing the victim’s attention to the time, place, and circumstances of the earlier statement. 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 affor...

...If a witness denies making or does not distinctly admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. When a witness at trial does not remember the earlier “inconsistent” statement, the witness does not “distinctly admit making” the statement under section 90.614(2)....

...In Pearce , a witness did not “recall” or “remember” telling a detective a material fact that contradicted the witness’s in-court testimony. Id. at 569 . The Supreme Court held that the witness’s lack of memory meant that the witness did “not distinctly admit making the prior inconsistent statement” under section 90.614(2), so that “the trial court erred by not permitting *1136 defense counsel to admit extrinsic evidence,” a videotape of the witness’s prior statement....

...n questions and answers and the trial court refused to allow the impeachment. Id. The third district held that the witness’s failure to remember the deposition testimony meant that he did not “distinctly admit making” the prior statement under section 90.614(2), so that the deposition testimony was admissible extrinsic evidence of impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement....

...Affirmed. HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. . Professor Ehrhardt notes that a witness’s inability to remember prior statements may prevent a statement from being used to refresh recollection; however, "if the prior statement is offered to impeach, section 90.614 permits proof of the prior inconsistent statement when the witness does not remember making it.” Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 608.4 n....

...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....

13(1) and 812.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979). . Section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1979), which codifies prior

PER CURIAM. Although the trial court erred in refusing to permit defendant to introduce extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by a prosecution witness, § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat....

...This being so, the defendant failed to lay the proper foundation for the subsequent introduction of such statements as required by Florida law. See Calhoun v. State, 502 So.2d 1364, 1365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Wright v. State, 427 So.2d 326, 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat....