HERMAN ADAMSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting certain hearsay testimony after the defense opened the door and in excluding testimony from an officer regarding the effects of cocaine.
Defendant was convicted of manslaughter and appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting witness statements through an investigating officer a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Williams Rule Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Herman Adamson appeals his conviction for manslaughter. He first contends that the trial court erred in allowing the investigating officer to testify with respect to the witness statements of witnesses Santos and Parks, who did not testify at trial. Although those statements would otherwise have been inadmissible hearsay, we conclude that the defense opened the door during its examination of the investigating officer and that the trial court properly allowed a limited inquiry by the State on cross examination. See Guerrero v. State, 532 So. 2d 75, 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). For the same reason, assuming for these purposes that the Williams rule * objection was properly made, the testimony was properly admitted.
Defendant also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining objections to two questions asked of the investigating officer regarding the effects of cocaine. We conclude that the trial court acted within the bounds of permissible discretion in ruling that the question called for an expert opinion the officer was not qualified to give. See § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (1989); Quinn v. Millard, 358 So. 2d 1378, 1382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
Affirmed.
*
Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959); see § 90.404(2), Fla.Stat. (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bradford, 658 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…in chief. It can only be used as rebuttal evidence. Using the hearsay evidence as rebuttal is no different than any other case allowing otherwise inadmissible evidence as rebuttal when the other side has opened the door. See, e.g., Adamson v. State, 569 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (defendant’s cross-examination opened the door to otherwise inadmissible hearsay); Morgan v. State, 520 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (testimony over “double hearsay” objection not error in light of fact that defendant’s attorney…
-
Redd v. State, 49 So. 3d 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…Ramirez v. State, 739 So. 2d 568, 580 (Fla.1999). The more unreliable the evidence is, the less likely it is that fairness requires its admission. See id. Hearsay is sometimes admissible under the “opening the door” principle. See Adamson v. State, 569 So. 2d 495, 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); see also, e.g., Dennis v. State, 817 So. 2d 741, 752-53 (Fla.2002) (agreeing with the State that the door was opened to a line of questioning that included implied hearsay and to which a hearsay objection had been lodged). N…
-
Garrett Emil Wright v. State, 582 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…e appellant’s arrest, the door was opened for the state’s questions which clarified the testimony elicited by the appellant. Hinton v. State, 347 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). See also Walton v. State, 481 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1985); Adamson v. State, 569 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Furthermore, the appellant’s statements and questions could easily have led the jury to infer that the statement which was the basis of the arrest was not sufficient to arrest the appellant. The' state was, accordingly, properly…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- Quinn v. Truman Alan Millard, 358 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Guerrero v. State, 532 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)