Bedoya v. State

¶1Walter Bedoya appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine in excess of 400 grams. We affirm.

¶2Bedoya’s principal contention is that certain of his inculpatory statements should not have been admitted into evidence through a rebuttal witness. The statements at issue had apparently been suppressed by pretrial ruling because they were taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).* Defendant testified at trial and on cross-examination denied any recollection of making statements to the arresting officers. One of the arresting officers was called as a rebuttal witness to testify to statements made by defendant.

¶3Contrary to appellant’s contention, this procedure was permissible. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 223-26, 91 S.Ct. 643, 644-46, 28 L.Ed.2d 1, 3-5 (1971); Washington v. State, 432 So.2d 44, 47 (Fla.1983). Indeed, based on the testimony adduced at trial, it does not appear that there had, in fact, been any Mirandaviolation. Assuming for purposes of this appeal that there was a Mirandaviolation, the trial court’s rulings were entirely proper.

¶4No reversible error is shown in the second point on appeal.

¶5Affirmed.