JOHN SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JOHN SMITH, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
528 So. 2d 1377
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1988)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony contradicting appellant’s statements to police about his place of residence. However, we believe the admission of such testimony was harmless and affirm appellant’s conviction.
LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.
Dissent
ANSTEAD, Judge,
dissenting.
I agree that hearsay evidence was erroneously admitted, but I cannot agree that its admission was harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Taylor, 569 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…GARRETT, Judge. We choose to treat this appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition. Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c). As such, we grant the petition on the authority of Slattery v. Slattery, 528 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Appellant timely objected to the order which referred a motion to compel hearing to the general -master. The trial judge overruled the objection. A party’s consent is required before the hearing can be referred to the genera…
-
Heilman v. Heilman, 596 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1992)…. Heilman’s arguments that: (1) the committee note requires the consent of the parties; (2) rule 1.491 was not properly invoked as to apply to non-title IV-D cases; and (3) there is no difference between rules 1.490 and 1.491. Slattery v. Slattery, 528 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), and Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 566 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), relied on by the petitioner, are inapplicable because they involved proceedings under rule 1.490, not rule 1.491. Oliveri v. Oliveri, 541 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1…
-
Wilson v. McKAY, 568 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…rior to the hearing. Thus, the trial court erred in overruling the husband’s objections and approving the report’s provisions pertaining to attorney’s fees and costs. Kuper v. Kuper, 564 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Bathurst; Slattery v. Slattery, 528 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(c). Furthermore, the husband did not waive his right to object by participating in the hearing after filing his objection. Kuper; see Bathurst, 533 So. 2d at 941 n. 3; cf. Goldfarb v. Agran, 546 So. 2d 24, 25…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)