The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . either did not remember appellant's number or denied giving it to the detective, pursuant to section 90.614 . . . was a prior inconsistent statement; however, a prior inconsistent statement admitted under section 90.614 . . . The trial court relied on section 90.614, Florida Statutes (2017), in admitting into evidence the girlfriend's . . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes, provides in part: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement . . . statement to impeach the witness, as the prosecutor did not lay the proper foundation under section 90.614 . . .
. . . (citation omitted)); § 90.614(2), Fla. . . .
. . . See § 90.614(2), Fla. . . . Pearce, 880 So.2d at 570 (explaining that defense counsel laid the proper foundation under section 90.614 . . .
. . . (citing § 90.614(2), Fla. . . . Stat. (2008)) (explaining the requirement in section 90.614(2) that the witness is first afforded an . . . Here, under section 90.614(2) and Rodriguez, the trial court correctly barred defense counsel from attempting . . .
. . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that before extrinsic evidence of the contents of . . . inability to remember making it, extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the statement was made. § 90.614 . . .
. . . .” § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . inconsistent’ statement, the witness does not ‘distinctly admit making’ the statement under section 90.614 . . . established entitlement to introduce the mother’s extrinsic evidence of the prior statement under section 90.614 . . .
. . . See also § 90.614, Fla. . . .
. . . witness does not “distinctly admit” the prior inconsistent statement within the meaning of section 90.614 . . . Next, the defense satisfied the requirement of section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (2008) by directing . . . Section 90.614(2) provides in pertinent part: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by . . . inconsistent” statement, the witness does not “distinctly admit making” the statement under section 90.614 . . . being used to refresh recollection; however, "if the prior statement is offered to impeach, section 90.614 . . .
. . . Nor was the officer’s statement admissible to impeach the witness under sections 90.608 and 90.614(2) . . .
. . . admissible as extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the homeowner under section 90.614 . . .
. . . deny the prior statement” prior to the admission of his hearsay statements as required under section 90.614 . . . State also made no effort to lay a proper predicate for the admission of the statement under section 90.614 . . .
. . . substantive evidence under section 90.801(2)(1) is still admissible for impeachment purposes under section 90.614 . . .
. . . See § 90.614, Fla. Stat. (2007); Varas v. . . .
. . . See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). ORFINGER, TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur. . . .
. . . prior inconsistent statement, so long as the proper predicate had been laid as required by section 90.614 . . . See id. at 570 (quoting § 90.614(2)). . . .
. . . denied making the prior statements (which would have permitted the entry of the documents under section 90.614 . . . Jennings III, 512 So.2d at 173 (citing § 90.614, Fla. Stat.). . . .
. . . The court overruled the objection and admitted the statement into evidence under section 90.614(1), Florida . . .
. . . See § 90.614 Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .
. . . As provided in section 90.614(2), Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is . . . Under section 90.614(2), extrinsic evidence is admissible when a witness does not “distinctly admit” . . . The record in this case shows that defense counsel laid the proper foundation under section 90.614(2) . . . making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement [was] admissible.” § 90.614 . . .
. . . See §§ 90.608(1), 90.614; Brumbley v. State, 453 So.2d 381, 384-85 (Fla.1984). . . .
. . . We conclude that the trial court’s evidentiary ruling was consistent with section 90.614, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . See § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1997). . . .
. . . Section 90.614(1), “Prior statements of witnesses,” provides: (1) When a witness is examined concerning . . .
. . . Compatible with the requirements of section 90.614, Florida Statutes, the prosecutor showed the document . . .
. . . . § 90.614, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . (2) allows the admission of extrinsic evidence of the “critical testimony.”); see also § 90.614(2), Fla . . . Moreover, even if the defendants did not meet the foundational requirements of section 90.614(2), which . . . 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 . . .
. . . . § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); see Hernandez v. Charles E. . . .
. . . See §§ 90.608(1), 90.614(1), 90.801(l)(c), 90.802, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .
. . . Section 90.614(2) provides: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible . . .
. . . Cash-well 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 . . . admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. § 90.614 . . .
. . . It could, however, have been admitted as impeachment evidence under section 90.614. . . .
. . . free to point out any such discrepancies through proper impeachment procedures, see §§ 90.608(1) and 90.614 . . .
. . . We also agree with the State that the foundational requirements of section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes . . .
. . . must follow to introduce extrinsic evidence of such prior inconsistent statements is found at section 90.614 . . . was still required to lay the proper foundation for the introduction of the detective’s testimony. § 90.614 . . .
. . . Moreover, section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1995) specifically allows extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent . . .
. . . Allowing the evidence in also violated section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1993), prohibiting admission . . .
. . . See § 90.614, Fla.Stat. (1993). We conclude that no evidentiary error has been shown. . . .
. . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1991), provides: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement . . . Accordingly, under section 90.614(2), extrinsic evidence of this statement, which is contained in the . . .
. . . . § 90.614, Fla.Stat. (1991). . . .
. . . State, 427 So.2d 326, 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). (2) Moreover, the defendant . . .
. . . The state failed to establish the essential predicate required by section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1987 . . .
. . . not admissible for purposes of impeachment during rebuttal, absent the foundation required by Section 90.614 . . . In the cited cases, the courts held that the Section 90.614(2) predicate was a condition precedent to . . . Consequently, the last sentence of Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes, simply does not apply to such . . .
. . . The trial court barred this testimony pursuant to Florida Evidence Code § 90.614(2) because defense counsel . . . Florida Evidence Code § 90.614(2) requires: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a . . .
. . . See §§ 90.614(2), 90.801(2)(a), Pla. Stat. (1985). . . .
. . . See also, § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .
. . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes. . . .
. . . See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1985); Hoctor v. . . .
. . . inconsistent with trial testimony is, with few exceptions, admissible as long as the requirements of section 90.614 . . . Section 90.614(2) provides: (2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is . . .
. . . to introduce extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by a prosecution witness, § 90.614 . . .
. . . Therefore, it would be impossible to comply with the Section 90.614 requirement that before extrinsic . . .
. . . . § 90.614(2). Irons’ conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded for a new trial. . . .
. . . . § 90.608(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983); 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (1983). . Myers v. . . .
. . . for impeachment based upon the prior out-of-court statements to Deputy Kahl, as required by section 90.614 . . . argues that the usual predicate for impeachment was not required in view of the provision in section 90.614 . . . objection to the rebuttal testimony in explicit terms of an insufficient predicate, as required by section 90.614 . . . Section 90.614(2) reads: (2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible . . .
. . . The rule enunciated above is embodied in Section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1983). . . . prior inconsistent statement does not require the exclusion of the proffered testimony under section 90.614 . . .
. . . Sisto, 534 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1976); see § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). . . .
. . . Section 90.614(2); Florida Statutes (1981), requires that appellant be afforded the opportunity to explain . . .
. . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1981), provides that extrinsic evidence of a witness’ prior inconsistent . . .
. . . Assuming this to be the case, Green contends that the predicate required by Section 90.614, Florida Statutes . . . admitted, the witness must first be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the statement, Section 90.614 . . .
. . . Tolley, 345 So.2d 747, 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); §§ 90.403, 90.609, 90.610, 90.614, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . .
. . . This is an ancient rule of fairness to witnesses and is the historical basis for section 90.614, Florida . . . objection on this ground as required by the contemporaneous objection rule and any violation of section 90.614 . . .
. . . failed to establish any predicate for the statement’s introduction, in direct contravention of Section 90.614 . . . This rule is now codified in Section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1979): Prior statements of witnesses.— . . .
. . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that a prior inconsistent statement is inadmissible . . .
. . . Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes (1979) states in pertinent part: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent . . . We think the plain terms of Section 90.614(2) certainly contemplate a more direct reference to the prior . . .
. . . Section 90.614, Florida Statutes (1979), which codifies prior Florida law to the effect that before a . . .
. . . State, 281 So.2d 398 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); see Florida Evidence Code, Section 90.614(2) (effective July . . .