5D00-2972 Owens v. State

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 5D00-2972.op

Case Date: 05/27/2002

Plaintiff: 5D00-2972 Owens

Defendant: State

Preview:JESSIE OWENS,

Appellant,
v. CASE NO. 5D00-2972
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
/
Opinion filed May 31, 2002.
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County,
Warren Burk, Judge.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender,
and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant
Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee,
and Belle B. Schumann,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach,
for Appellee.

THOMPSON, C.J.

Jessie Owens appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Owens was involved in an altercation with Quincy Jones, who allegedly owed Owens
money. The altercation resulted in a gunshot, and police were called to the scene. Police
were given Owens's name and went to his residence.  According to the police, Owens admitted
having been in possession of the weapon, which belonged to his wife, but told police that the unless the magazine was removed.  According to police, Owens claimed that he had the gun for intimidation purposes, and that it had accidentally discharged.  Also according to police, Owens helped them retrieve the gun from his closet and the magazine from under the mattress. At trial, Owens and his wife claimed that it was his wife who had actually possessed the gun at the scene, and that it was she who had retrieved the gun and the magazine for police. The wife testified that she fired the gun because two men were fighting with her husband. Owens explained that he had falsely confessed at his residence, and again at the police station, because police had threatened to lock up his wife and take his children, and because he was drunk.
The two reluctant witnesses, Jones and Mike Battle, both testified that they had been drunk that night, and had memory lapses on the stand.  Jones testified that he did not recall giving oral and written statements to police.  Part of Jones's statement was allowed as impeachment evidence, and Owens contends that the impeachment evidence was inadmissible because, given Jones asserted lack of memory, Jones's statement to police was not inconsistent with his trial testimony.
Section 90.608(1)(a), Florida Statutes, allows any party, including the party calling the witness, to attack the credibility of the witness by introducing statements of the witness

Download 5D00-2972.op.pdf