State v. Delgado-Santos
| Decision Date | 30 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | DELGADO-SANTO,R,No. 67419,67419 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 565,497 So.2d 1199 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 565 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Marioespondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
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.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Otton
...(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985). Under that test, an “ ‘other proceeding’ ” does not ever include a “police interrogation.” State v. Delgado–Santos , 497 So.2d 1199, 1199 (Fla.1986). However, while the Florida evidentiary rule is textually similar to ER 801(d)(1)(i), the Florida courts faced differe......
-
State v. Collins, 18795
...Ragghianti, 560 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.1977) (statement to federal agent); Delgado-Santos v. State, 471 So.2d 74 (Fla.App.1985), aff'd, 497 So.2d 1199 (Fla.1986) (statement given under oath to police); State v. Johnson, 220 Neb. 392, 370 N.W.2d 136 (1985) (transcribed interview with witness in ......
-
State v. Gross
...States v. Ragghianti, 560 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.1977). A number of states have adopted the federal approach. E.g., State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So.2d 1199, 1199 (Fla.1986); State v. Demery, 331 N.W.2d 7, 11-12 (N.D.1983); State v. Spadafore, 220 S.E.2d 655, 664 (W.Va.1975). When New Jersey aba......
-
State v. Sims
...under oath but it was not made in a “trial, hearing, or other proceeding or deposition” as required by the code. 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). The notion that a statement ......