Case Name: Clifford BELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-07-10
Citations: 491 So. 2d 537
Docket Number: No. 67434
Parties: Clifford BELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: MCDONALD, C.J., and BOYD, OVER-TON and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 491
Pages: 537–539

Head Matter:
Clifford BELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 67434.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 10, 1986.
J. Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and L.S. Alperstein and Deborah K. Bru-eckheimer, Asst. Public Defenders, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Tampa, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Frank Migl-iore, Jr. and James A. Young, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

Opinion:
SHAW, Justice.
We have before us by petition for review Bell v. State, 473 So.2d 734 (Fla.2d DCA 1985), because the district court of appeal certified that its decision is in direct conflict with Price v. State, 469 So.2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.
Bell and McBride were charged with trafficking in cocaine. Following their arrest and McBride's entering a guilty plea, he stated under oath that Bell had nothing to do with the crime. McBride subsequently testified for the state at Bell's trial.
During direct examination of McBride, and over defense objection that the prosecutor was impeaching his own witness, testimony was elicited that McBride had initially lied to protect Bell. This prosecu-torial effort was to thwart the impact of a defense attack on McBride's credibility. The trial court overruled the objection, and the district court affirmed, characterizing the testimony as "anticipatory rehabilitation" rather than impeachment. We agree with the district court that the challenged testimony was admissible and that it was not impeachment because it was not for the purpose of attacking the witness's credibility. Rather, the testimony was offered to take the wind out of the sails of a defense attack on the witness's credibility.
The credibility of witnesses is always in issue. C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 401.1 (2d ed. 1984). We see no violation to the evidence code in allowing a party to mitigate the impact of inconsistent statements likely to be introduced, nor anything intrinsic to the jury's truth-finding function in an arbitrary requirement that opposing counsel's trial strategy may not be undercut. "Generally the rule against impeaching your own witness has not been interpreted to forbid counsel from asking his own witness on direct examination about prior inconsistent statements or prior convictions when done in an attempt to 'soften the blow' or reduce the harmful consequences." Ehrhardt, § 608.2 (citations omitted).
In accordance with the view expressed above, we approve the decision of the district court. We disapprove Price to the extent that its reasoning is inconsistent with our holding in the present case. State v. Price, 491 So.2d 536 (Fla.1986).
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and BOYD, OVER-TON and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.
BARKETT, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
ADKINS, J., dissents.
Impeaching one's own witness is generally proscribed. § 90.608, Fla.Stat. (1981).