State v. Kruse
This text of 507 So. 2d 588 (State v. Kruse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Frank KRUSE, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Richard G. Bartmon, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Gwendolyn Spivey, Tallahassee, for respondent.
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
507 So. 2d 588, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kruse-fla-1987.