ANDREW M. DAIMLER, APPELLANT,

v.

CAROL E. DAIMLER, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• RAE v. State, 638 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
  …required foundation because he was the owner of the business and sometimes collected the money himself. However, the state’s failure to introduce testimony laying the proper foundation was fatal to the application of this exception. Quick v. State, 450 So. 2d 880, 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Moreover, there were notations made by Absec on the ledgers, which were not admissible under the business records exception because they were made in anticipation of litigation and not in the regular course of business.4 F…
• Medlock v. State, 537 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
  …ay. Dietz v. State, 534 So. 2d 808, (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Since the state relied upon Garrison’s bank statement as the primary, if not the sole, evidence of the theft, we find the admission of the statement to be reversible error. See Quick v. State, 450 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Reversed with directions for the trial court to discharge Medlock. SCHEB, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.…
• Jenkins v. State, 719 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
  …crimes independent of and unconnected with the crime for which the defendant is on trial is error that is generally presumed to be prejudicial. Hirsch v. State, 279 So. 2d 866 (Fla.1973); Whitted v. State, 362 So. 2d 668 (Fla.1978); Quick v. State, 450 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Denmark v. State, 646 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). However, Section 924.051(7), Florida Statutes (1997), places the burden on the appellant to demonstrate that an error occurring in the trial court was prejudicial. See Goodwi…

Authorities Cited

• City OF Miami v. Spurrier, 320 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)