Foundation For Impeachment

16 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Faunce Levon Pearce v. State
  880 So. 2d 561· Fla.· 2004-07-01 ·cited 130×
  Faunce Pearce was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder in connection with execution-style shootings during a kidnapping orchestrated to recover drug money. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his death sentence, finding sufficient evidence of premedi
• United States v. Pasquale Charles Marzano
  537 F.2d 257· 7th Cir.· 1976-05-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the FBI's active participation in the search and seizure of evidence by foreign officials violated the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights, requiring suppression of the evidence.
• H. F. Wilcox OIL & GAS Co. v. Diffie
  186 F.2d 683· 10th Cir.· 1950-12-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior inconsistent deposition for impeachment, even without laying a foundation, as the rule is for the witness's benefit and the deposition was duly authenticated.
• United States v. Harvey
  547 F.2d 720· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding extrinsic evidence of a key government witness's potential bias, as such evidence is not collateral and is admissible to impeach credibility.
• Thomas v. United States
  363 F.2d 159· 9th Cir.· 1966-07-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the attempted impeachment of the defendant by the prosecution was improper and prejudicial, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Marsh v. State
  202 So. 2d 222· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-09-12 ·cited 12×
  Alan Stewart Marsh, Sr. was convicted of breaking and entering and grand larceny after police found a stolen safe in his automobile. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that prosecutorial misconduct—specifically, lay
• Moises Espinoza v. State
  37 So. 3d 387· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-06-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that defense counsel failed to lay a proper foundation for impeachment because the victim's inability to recall details of a prior statement was not truly inconsistent with her trial testimony.
• Morris v. Dist. of Columbia
  124 F.2d 284· D.C. Cir.· 1941-12-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the exclusion of character evidence and liability insurance information, and the denial of a subpoena for witness statements, were not prejudicial errors requiring reversal.
• United States v. Martinez
  428 F.2d 86· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-15 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the trial proceedings or constitutional challenges raised by the defendants.
• Barnett v. State
  45 So. 3d 963· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-10-13 ·cited 6×
  Ronald Barnett appeals his conviction for lewd and lascivious molestation of a minor. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms, rejecting Barnett's arguments that the trial court erred in refusing a lesser-included offense instruction on simple battery, in sustaining a hearsa
• Fernandez-Carballo v. State
  590 So. 2d 1004· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-12-10 ·cited 2×
  Alejandro Fernandez-Carballo appealed his conviction for unarmed robbery, challenging the trial court's evidentiary rulings on hearsay statements and its denial of a continuance/mistrial motion. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial court's ex
• Salvo v. State
  199 So. 3d 390· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-08-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit harmful error by sustaining a hearsay objection to cross-examination about inconsistent statements regarding the amount of money stolen, but did err in sentencing the defendant by imposing multiple overlapping recidivist sanction
• Mspa Claims 1, LLC v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co.
  108 La. 479· S.D. Fla.· 2018-10-19
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish standing because it did not provide competent evidence of assignment approval required by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.
• Toledo Massey and Fernando Burnette v. United States
  407 F.2d 1126· 9th Cir.· 1969-02-20
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding defense testimony regarding the victim's prior statements about unchastity, as the statements were inadmissible hearsay and lacked a proper impeachment foundation.