6D2023-0212
The Sixth DCA affirmed Maya's second-degree murder conviction, holding that the trial court properly admitted a witness's prior grand jury testimony as substantive evidence under section 90.801(2)(a) after finding her claimed memory loss at trial was feigned. The court distinguished this from Morton v. State, which bars calling a witness primarily to introduce 'otherwise inadmissible' impeachment evidence, because grand jury testimony is independently admissible as substantive evidence, not merely impeachment. The court also found the prosecutor's improper 'abiding conviction' comment during rebuttal closing to be harmless error.
Key facts
- Maya was charged with and convicted of second-degree murder in the trial court.
- A witness testified at trial claiming memory loss, but the trial court found the claimed memory loss was feigned; the court admitted the witness's prior grand jury testimony as substantive evidence.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision clarifies and narrows the reach of Morton v. State, confirming that the 'primary purpose' impeachment rule does not bar the State from calling a witness specifically to elicit grand jury testimony that… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.