ERIC CALLOWAY, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Eric Calloway appeals his convictions for sexual battery upon a child and false imprisonment. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony about a BOLO (Be On Look Out) and inadmissible portions of a nurse's testimony that were unrelated to medical diagnosis or treatment.
The court held that both categories of testimony were inadmissible. The officer's testimony about the suspect's name, location of the crime, and manner of commission constituted inadmissible hearsay that was not essential to establish a logical sequence of events. Similarly, the nurse's testimony included statements by the child unrelated to medical diagnosis or treatment and thus violated the medical exception to the hearsay rule.
[1] Testimony regarding the contents of a BOLO is inadmissible hearsay when it includes accusatory remarks not essential to establish a logical sequence of events.
[2] Inadmissible hearsay testimony that bolsters a victim's testimony may constitute reversible error if the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did n…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“although it is permissible to permit the contents of a BOLO into evidence to show a logical sequence of events, only that information essential to establish that logical sequence is admissible, not accusatory remarks”
Establishes the legal standard for admissibility of BOLO contents, distinguishing between essential sequential information and inadmissible accusations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA black female child ran into a bar crying hysterically and reported to the manager that a man named Eric, who was staying with her grandmother, had t…
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 Bolstering Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Eric Calloway appeals his convictions and sentences for sexual battery upon a child and false imprisonment.
He argues that the investigating officer should not have been allowed to testify about the contents of a BOLO the officer received from the police dispatcher. We agree and find reversible error. The officer testified that the dispatcher told him that a bar manager had reported that a black female child [victim] had run into the bar crying hysterically and said that a man Eric [appellant] who was staying with her grandmother had tried to make her take off her clothes before she ran out of the house. The manager never testified at trial. Appellant testified that he did not commit the sexual battery and only the child testified that he did.
As this court stated in Cooper v. State, 573 So. 2d 74, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), although it is permissible to permit the contents of a BOLO into evidence to show a logical sequence of events, only that information essential to establish that logical sequence is admissible, not accusatory remarks. See also Harris v. State, 544 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The officer’s testimony about the name of the suspect, where the crime took place, and how the crime occurred were not essential to show a logical sequence of events. That testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay and because it bolstered the child’s testimony, we conclude that the state has failed to meet its burden of proving that there is no reasonable possibility that such error contributed to appellant’s convictions. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Appellant also argues that the testimony of a hospital nurse included statements of the child that were unrelated to medical diagnosis or treatment. § 90.-803(4), Fla.Stat. (1991). The nurse testified:
Basically I asked her if she knew why she had been brought here, and she basically told me that she had been spending the night at her grandmother’s and Eric was getting her nightgown and then, in quotes, ‘He locked the door and told me to take my clothes off. He took his clothes off....’
Again, we agree. But, on retrial the nurse can testify as she did that the child told her “He squeezed my stomach, licked my privates and put his private inside.”
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.
GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur. DELL, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dayle Shaffer v. State, 619 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…dly held by various courts, the contents of a BOLO are generally inadmissible in that they contain incriminating hearsay details unnecessary to establish a logical sequence of events. See State v. Baird, 572 So. 2d 904 (Fla.1990); Calloway v. State, 588 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Jones v. State, 577 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Cooper v. State, 573 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Here the information contained in the BOLO, particularly with respect to the suspects being black males, was obtained from t…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Bartelmy Harris v. State, 544 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Cooper v. State, 573 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)