Prince v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Prince v. State

80 So. 3d 1083, 2012 WL 516173, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2403

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 17, 2012

Docket1D10-5058

StatusPublished

This text of 80 So. 3d 1083 (Prince v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prince v. State, 80 So. 3d 1083, 2012 WL 516173, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2403 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, J.

Appellant seeks review of his convictions for failure to report a change of residence as required by. section 943.0435, Florida Statutes (2010), alleging the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We agree and reverse because the only evidence of guilt was prior inconsistent statements given by appellant’s fiancé. Prior inconsistent statements may not provide the sole evidence of guilt. See Aime v. State, 4 So.3d 57, 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citations omitted) (“While the law allows the admission of some prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence, those statements cannot be the sole evidence of guilt and must comport with section 90.801(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2007).”). As such, the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment *1084 of acquittal, and we reverse for vacation of appellant’s convictions.

REVERSED.

PADOVANO and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

WOLF, J.

Appellant seeks review of his convictions for failure to report a change of residence as required by. section 943.0435, Florida Statutes (2010), alleging the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We agree and reverse because the only evidence of guilt was prior inconsistent statements given by appellant’s fiancé. Prior inconsistent statements may not provide the sole evidence of guilt. See Aime v. State, 4 So.3d 57, 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citations omitted) (“While the law allows the admission of some prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence, those statements cannot be the sole evidence of guilt and must comport with section 90.801(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2007).”). As such, the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment *1084 of acquittal, and we reverse for vacation of appellant’s convictions.

REVERSED.

PADOVANO and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 So. 3d 1083, 2012 WL 516173, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prince-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack