Court Opinion

ID: 4827231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-22 14:33:38.809971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:16.984734
License: Public Domain

MURDOCK, Justice
(dissenting).
Christopher Anthony Floyd argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in not admitting statements he made to police that were inconsistent with his out-of-court confession to police. He contends that the excluded statements tend to prove that his confession was not credible and that their exclusion prevented him from presenting a complete defense. The main opinion rejects this contention with the reasoning that the proffered statements were inadmissable hearsay because “to achieve Floyd’s objective for admitting the other statements into evidence — proving that his September 27, 2004, confession was unreliable in light of the inconsistency *164of that statement with other statements he had made to law-enforcement officers— Floyd [necessarily sought to introduce] the other statements to prove ‘the truth of the matter asserted’ in [those statements].” 191 So.3d at 161-62.
Given the unique circumstances of this case and the content of many of those other statements, I am not persuaded that the stated rationale for upholding their exclusion — that “Floyd [necessarily sought] ... to prove the ‘truth of the matter asserted’ ” in them — is correct. Even if the trial court erred in excluding the subject statements on the ground now urged by Floyd, however, this ground was not raised below, and I cannot conclude that the exclusion of the statements represents plain error.'
That said, after reviewing the record in this case as it now stands following a second remand, I have substantial concerns regarding the so-called Batson/J.E.B. challenges to prospective jurors no. 5/T.M.A. and no. 58/I.C., and I therefore respectfully must dissent.1