PADILLA v. STATE (2020)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Carmelo PADILLA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-1164

Decided: June 10, 2020

Before SCALES, MILLER and GORDO, JJ.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Davis v. State, 207 So. 3d 177, 193 (Fla. 2016) (“To be admissible, a prior inconsistent statement must either directly contradict or materially differ from the ․ testimony at trial.” (citing Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561, 569 (Fla. 2004))); Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181, 200 (Fla. 2005) (“Florida courts have held that a witness's inability to recall making a prior statement is not synonymous with providing trial testimony that is inconsistent with a prior statement.”), receded from on other grounds by State v. Sturdivant, 94 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2012); Espinoza v. State, 37 So. 3d 387, 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network