Case Citator › Morton v. State

Morton v. State

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Citation
689 So. 2d 259
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
41 of 41
Citing cases (total)
41
Treatment dates
2000–2015
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Morton v. State was overruled in part on the use of prior inconsistent statements during capital sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court later allowed such statements as substantive evidence if the defendant has a fair opportunity to rebut them.
More on how this was screened

The two confirmed treatments are listed below. All 41 flagged citations have been read. Courts continue to apply Morton's limits on calling a witness primarily to introduce impeachment evidence.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

41 later cases cite Morton v. State; 41 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Morton v. State?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Florida Supreme Court receded from Morton's rule against using a prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence during the penalty phase, while leaving Morton's outcome intact.

    Rodriguez v. State · Supreme Court of Florida · filed

    We recede from both Morton and Dudley to the extent they hold that a prior inconsistent statement cannot be used as substantive evidence in a penalty phase proceeding. We note, however, that in Morton, we still would have remanded the case for a new penalty phase proceeding because the State introduced the prior inconsistent statements of numerous witnesses, and significant confusion was caused by the repeated impeachment and the prosecutor's closing argument.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Florida Supreme Court held that due process required allowing the defense to recall and impeach a witness despite Morton's general restriction on calling a witness mainly to develop impeachment evidence.

    Bearden v. State · Supreme Court of Florida · filed

    However, this Court’s decision in Morton v. State, 689 So.2d 259 (Fla.1997), receded from on other grounds by Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29 (Fla.2000), provides that a party may not call a witness for the primary purpose of developing impeachment evidence. ... Consequently, the exclusion of the examination of Ray Allen Brown on recall deprived Bearden of due process. Under these circumstances, we conclude it was error for the trial court to prohibit Bearden from calling Ray Allen Brown.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Morton v. State and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace