State v. Kruse

Mar 19, 1987
68666
Reporters:
,
Before:
McDonald, Overton, Ehrlich, Shaw, Barkett, Adkins (per curiam)

PER CURIAM.

We ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‍originally accepted jurisdiction to resolve the narrow issue of whether an arrest subsequent to the date of an offense on trial may be used to impeach character ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‍testimony, as distinguished from testimony concerning truth and veracity. Holding subsequent arrests are inadmissible, the district court‘s decision is consistent with Greenfield v. State, 336 So.2d 1205 (Fla. ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‍4th DCA 1976), and conflicts with no other case on this issue. Accordingly, we find no jurisdictional basis and dismiss the petition as improvidently granted.

It is ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‍so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., and ADKINS, J. (Ret.), concur.