State v. Hunt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Hunt

687 So. 2d 851, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 29, 1997 WL 1826

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 3, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1036

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 687 So. 2d 851 (State v. Hunt) 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

State v. Hunt, 687 So. 2d 851, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 29, 1997 WL 1826 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, Judge.

Deidre Michelle Hunt was permitted to withdraw her plea, and as a result the trial court suppressed statements she made to law enforcement subsequent to her plea. We affirm the court’s order which prohibits the State from introducing such statements during its case in chief. However, such statements may become admissible for the purpose of impeachment. See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971) (a statement which was inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief because it was obtained before defendant was advised of his right to remain silent, but which otherwise satisfied legal standards of trustworthiness, was properly usable for impeachment purposes to attack the credibility of the defendant’s trial testimony). See also Washington v. State, 432 So.2d 44 (Fla.1983) (defendant’s otherwise inadmissible statements could be used in rebuttal after he testified in his own defense).

AFFIRMED.

COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

HARRIS, Judge.

Deidre Michelle Hunt was permitted to withdraw her plea, and as a result the trial court suppressed statements she made to law enforcement subsequent to her plea. We affirm the court’s order which prohibits the State from introducing such statements during its case in chief. However, such statements may become admissible for the purpose of impeachment. See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971) (a statement which was inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief because it was obtained before defendant was advised of his right to remain silent, but which otherwise satisfied legal standards of trustworthiness, was properly usable for impeachment purposes to attack the credibility of the defendant’s trial testimony). See also Washington v. State, 432 So.2d 44 (Fla.1983) (defendant’s otherwise inadmissible statements could be used in rebuttal after he testified in his own defense).

AFFIRMED.

COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 851, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 29, 1997 WL 1826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hunt-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack