Hoffman v. State

18 So. 3d 659, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12957, 2009 WL 2827968
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hoffman v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 997 So. 2d 1230
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 4, 2009·No. No. 5D08-2896·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Gonzalez v. State, 948 So.2d 877, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding that non-testifying defendant who brings out his or her own exculpatory statements through another witness runs risk of having statements impeached by felony convictions); see also 5 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Wein-stein’s Federal Evidence § 806.04(2)(b) (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed. 2002) (“A defendant who chooses not to testify but who succeeds in getting his ... own exculpatory statements into evidence runs [660]*660the risk of having those statements impeached by felony convictions

PALMER, ORFINGER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hoffman v. State, 18 So. 3d 659, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12957, 2009 WL 2827968 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

18 So. 3d 659 (Hoffman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gonzalez v. State
948 So. 2d 877 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)