Marshall v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13494
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Marshall was convicted of charges arising from a drive-by shooting in which the victim was shot in the leg.
- The victim identified Marshall as the driver and testified he saw a gun in the driver's hand; he could not identify other occupants.
- Before trial, the victim told the prosecutor Marshall was not the driver; the prosecutor passed this to defense counsel.
- During trial, defense sought to impeach the victim with the prior inconsistent statement; the victim testified he did not recall making that statement.
- The trial court ruled that the prior statement was inadmissible hearsay and precluded impeachment.
- On appeal, the Florida Fifth District reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding impeachment by a prior inconsistent statement was admissible for impeachment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior inconsistent statement impeachment was admissible | Marshall argues impeachment not hearsay and admissible. | State contends the statement is hearsay and not admissible for impeachment. | Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement is admissible; error reversible. |
| Preservation of error for appeal | Defense adequately preserved error despite no prosecutor called at proffer. | State contends error not preserved since no specific proffer of prosecutor's testimony. | Error preserved; definitive ruling allowed preservation without renewal or actual proffer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 472 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (prior inconsistent statement admissible for impeachment)
- Holmes v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (offer of proof sufficiency; proffers may be oral)