SENECA D. HOWARD
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Evidence of a party-opponent's prior inconsistent statements is admissible under Florida law without requiring the witness an opportunity to explain or deny the statement before introduction of extrinsic evidence.
[1] Under Florida Statute § 90.614(2), admissions of a party-opponent are exempt from the requirement to provide a witness an opportunity to explain or deny a prior inconsist…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Otherwise admissible impeachment evidence in response to evidence which has been presented for the first time in the defense case is proper rebuttal evidence. The type of impeachment evidence introduced here, evidence that prior statements of an adverse witness are inconsistent with his in-court testimony, is probably the most common form of impeachment evidence.”
Annis v. First Union Bank of Fla., 566 So. 2d 273, 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
Seneca D. Howard appealed a conviction from the Circuit Court for Orange County. The trial court admitted evidence of prior inconsistent statements.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2024-0667 Lower Tribunal No. 2020-CF-4414-A-O
SENECA D. HOWARD, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Michael Kraynick, Judge.
May 15, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2024) (stating that the requirement to provide a witness "an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement and the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness on it" when confronted with "[e]xtrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement” “is not applicable to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in s[ection] 90.803(18)"); Annis v. First Union Bank of Fla., 566 So. 2d 273, 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) ("Otherwise admissible impeachment evidence in response to evidence which has been presented for the first time in the defense case is proper rebuttal evidence. The type of impeachment evidence introduced here, evidence that prior statements of an adverse witness are inconsistent with his in-court testimony, is probably the most common form of impeachment evidence." (citing § 90.608(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989))); Avalos v. State, 419 So. 3d 299 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) ("From our review, the record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the requisite facts for imposing a habitual felony offender designation and that, therefore, any error is harmless." (citing Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 523 (Fla. 2007))).
WOZNIAK, WHITE and MIZE, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Clayton R. Kaeiser, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard A. Pallas, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007)
- Kaiser v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)
- Annis v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 566 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)