BUNNY BROWN, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Uniform Business Records As Evidence Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Brown appeals his conviction on a charge of sexual battery. Because Brown has not demonstrated reversible error, we affirm. Brown is correct that the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence a doctor’s testimony about the results of two gonorrhea tests. The doctor did not perform the tests, had no personal knowledge of who performed the tests, and was unaware of the process by which the samples left the hospital for a state laboratory, and returned as test reports. The test results were total hearsay and should not have been admitted into evidence. The doctor clearly was not a “custodian or other qualified witness” as contemplated in Florida’s Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, Fla.Stat. § 92.36, which was controlling at this trial.
However, given the totality of the evidence, this error was harmless. Fla.Stat. § 924.33.
The other issues raised by Brown are without merit and do not warrant discussion.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
MILLS, C. J., and McCORD and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sylvina Juste v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 520 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ian or other qualified witness is available to testify in court concerning the recorded information. § 90.803(6), Fla.Stat. (1985);3 [*72] R & W Farm Equipment Co., Inc. v. Fiat Credit Corporation, 466 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Brown v. State, 389 So. 2d 269, 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Van Zant v. State, 372 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). By the same token, hearsay evidence is admissible under the public records exception, only where the duty to make or maintain the document is imposed by statute or rule…
-
Kurynka v. Tamarac Hosp. Corp., Inc., 542 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…73 So. 2d 768 (Fla.1973); Specialty Linings, Inc. v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 532 So. 2d 1121 (Fla.2d DCA 1988); Beasley v. Mitel of Delaware, 449 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); City of Tampa v. Green, 390 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Brown v. State, 389 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Jaime v. Vilberg, 363 So. 2d 386 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1979). See also State v. James, 255 S.C. 365, 179 S.E. 2d 41 (1971). We conclude that the court erred by admitting the lab report into eviden…
-
Tejeda-Bermudez v. State, 427 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…e think it unnecessary to decide whether that evidence was relevant or prejudicial in light of the otherwise conclusive evidence as to the defendant’s guilt. If there was error in admitting the blood-typing evidence, it was harmless. Brown v. State, 389 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Jones v. State, 343 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence