Opinion ID: 1096510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: inconsistent statements as the only evidence for conviction

Text: We now turn to the second issue of whether the prior inconsistent statement of an alleged victim of child sexual abuse, even if said on multiple occasions, is sufficient, in and of itself, to sustain a conviction. We reach this question because, even though we find that the victim's deposition testimony was inadmissible, the victim made other prior inconsistent statements in this case that could be admitted at the trial under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989), the hearsay exception for statements made by child-abuse victims. Our decision in State v. Moore, 485 So.2d 1279 (Fla.1986) ( Moore II ), is dispositive and requires a finding that this evidence, standing alone, is insufficient to convict Green. In Moore II, we held that, in a criminal prosecution, a prior inconsistent statement standing alone is insufficient as a matter of law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We reiterate that conclusion today, finding that our holding in Moore II applies regardless of whether the prior inconsistent statement is admitted under section 90.801(2)(a) or section 90.803(23). As the Second District Court of Appeal concluded in Jaggers v. State, 536 So.2d 321, 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988): [W]e do not find the intent of section 90.803(23) is to allow the state to breathe substantive reliability into ... prior inconsistent statements when they are otherwise admissible only to impeach those prosecuting victim witnesses whose testimony is introduced by the state at trial.... The rule that prior inconsistent statements may not be used substantively as the sole evidence to convict ( see Moore ), applies to Section 90.803(23) evidence as well. Once the state introduced the exculpatory testimony, the inculpatory prior unsworn statements became prior inconsistent statements and should not have been allowed into evidence ... as substantive evidence. To allow the state to use as its sole evidence of the commission of the crime charged such prior unsworn, out of court statements which were not subject to cross-examination by the defendant ... violated the appellant's sixth amendment right to confrontation and cross-examination. See Moore, 485 So.2d at 1282 (Overton, J., concurring specially); Everett v. State, 530 So.2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Cf. Santiago v. State, 652 So.2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (where the only evidence offered by the state to substantiate the charge of attempted murder is the prior inconsistent statement of its own witness, the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction). In reaching our decision in Moore II, we stated that the risk of convicting an innocent accused is simply too great when the conviction is based entirely on prior inconsistent statements. 485 So.2d at 1281. The importance of that conclusion is perhaps best illustrated by the facts of this case where the mentally retarded victim, who has a mental age of seven, charged at least two individuals with sexual abuse and then recanted the abuse charges against one of those individuals, the defendant in this case. To convict Green based solely on the prior inconsistent statements of the victim would indeed create too great a risk of convicting an innocent accused, especially when we consider the immense potential for manipulation of a retarded child. This does not mean that inconsistent statements admitted under section 90.803(23) can never be used as substantive evidence when other proper corroborating evidence is admitted. The examining physician's testimony in this case is simply not adequate to supply that corroboration. Given our holding in Moore that the risk of convicting an innocent accused is simply too great under these circumstances, we answer the second reworded question in the negative. Accordingly, we answer both of the reworded questions in the negative; we disapprove that part of the district court's opinion finding that the rule 3.220 deposition testimony was admissible as substantive evidence under section 90.801(2)(a); and we approve that part of the district court's opinion holding that the prior inconsistent statements of the victim were insufficient to sustain the conviction in this case. Consequently, the decision of the district court of appeal is approved. It is so ordered. GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.