Harper v. State

MAXWELL, J.,

specially concurring:

¶ 34. I agree with the majority’s result and join in its conclusion that Harper’s failure to object serves as a procedural bar to our review of Harper’s co-conspirator, Debra Busby’s, testimony about her guilty pleas. But I write separately to discuss the propriety of the State’s use of a co-conspirator’s guilty plea during an accomplice’s direct examination. As stated in my concurrence in Foxworth v. State, I find this practice serves a proper eviden-tiary purpose when offered for permissible reasons. See Foxworth v. State, 96 So.3d 17, 20-22 (¶¶ 17-24)…