PEARISON WARE, 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.
Pearison Ware was convicted of first-degree felony murder in the death of a 16-year-old boy during a domestic dispute. On appeal, Ware challenged the admission of a 911 call recording, but the appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding the recording admissible as excited utterances and spontaneous statements.
The trial court properly admitted the 911 call recording. The information on the tape qualifies as admissible excited utterances and spontaneous statements under Florida Statutes §§ 90.803(1) and 90.803(2), and the recording had probative value beyond merely corroborating Valerie's credibility.
[1] A 911 tape recording may be admissible as an excited utterance or spontaneous statement, even if parts of it are irrelevant or lack probative value.
[2] The admissibility of a 911 tape recording as an excited utterance is not defeated by the fact that the declarant's testimony is the only evidence against the defendant.
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“The information contained on the tape is admissible as excited utterances and spontaneous statements pursuant to §§ 90.803(1) and 90.803(2), Florida Statutes (1989).”
Establishes the legal basis for admitting the 911 recording as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWare and Valerie Spikes, his girlfriend of 6 years, argued at her apartment. During the altercation, Valerie's 16-year-old son entered the room, and W…
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 First Degree Felony Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was indicted for the first-degree murder of Mario Spikes, with premeditation, while engaged in the perpetration of aggravated child abuse. He was tried by a jury, and was found guilty of first-degree felony murder. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to life in prison with a minimum mandatory sentence of 25 years.
The case arose out of a domestic argument. Valerie Spikes, the mother of the deceased, and the appellant were lovers for about 6 years prior to the happening that gave rise to the instant case. The relationship at best was a stormy one. The appellant and Valerie Spikes argued and fought in the past. In fact, the appellant admitted to abusing the deceased1 in the past. On the evening in question, the appellant went to Valerie’s apartment where they had a fight. The deceased came in after the fight and the appellant transferred his rage to the deceased resulting in fisticuffs. Valerie intervened attempting to restrain the appellant. The deceased broke away from the appellant and went to his room. The defendant followed leaving a short time later. When Valerie went to check on her son, she found him bleeding profusely from the neck. He died from this wound. She called the police who arrived and investigated the killing. Valerie told the police the appellant had taken a knife from her kitchen and had stabbed her son. The knife was never found; one knife was missing from the kitchen set. The appellant was arrested and charged with first degree murder, with premeditation. At jury trial the appellant’s defense was that he did not stab the deceased, but that Valerie attempted to stab him, missed, and accidentally stabbed her own son during the struggle. At trial, the trial judge, over appellant’s objection, admitted into evidence a tape recording of Valerie’s call to 911 for help. The jury found the appellant guilty and imposed a life sentence with 25 years minimum mandatory sentence. This appeal was taken.
The allegations by the appellant that the trial court erred in admitting the tape of the 911 call into evidence on the ground that the tape was almost completely irrelevant and had no real probative value, that the only value of the tape was to prove Valerie’s state of mind immediately after the crime and tended to lend credence to Valerie’s testimony, prejudicing the appellant in the eyes of the jury, when as in this case, Valerie’s testimony is the only evidence against the appellant, are without merit. The appellant does admit that portions of the tape are admissible as an excited witness exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Section 90.803(2), Florida Statutes (1989), but certainly the whole tape was not admissible.
The trial court was correct. The information contained on the tape is admissible as excited utterances and spontaneous statements pursuant to §§ 90.803(1) and 90.803(2), Florida Statutes (1989). Garcia v. State, 492 So. 2d 360, 365 (Fla.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1022, 107 S.Ct. 680, 93 L.Ed.2d 730 (1986); Conley v. State, 592 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); E.B. v. State, 531 So. 2d 1053, 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kennedy v. State, 385 So. 2d 1020, 1021-1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); State v. Johnson, 382 So. 2d 765, 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Williams v. State, 338 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Allen Morris Company v. McNally, 305 So. 2d 79, 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Darty v. State, 161 So. 2d 864, 870-871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 168 So. 2d 147 (Fla.1964); United States v. Rodriguez, 509 F. 2d 1342, 1348, n. 3 (5th Cir.1975). Therefore the verdict, adjudication and sentence are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
. The deceased is the 16 year old son of Valerie Spikes.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 698 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1997)…the tape was admissible as an excited utterance under section 90.803(2), Florida Statutes (1993). Allison v. State, 661 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (tape of 911 call by son upon finding mother dead admissible as excited utterance); Ware v. State, 596 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (tape of 911 call for help admissible as excited utterance). Moreover, the call was relevant to establish the circumstances of the crime and the time when Kimberly was discovered missing. Even if it could be said that the tape sho…
-
Sliney v. State, 699 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1997)…as to the hearsay issue was somewhat confusing,11 we find that the statement was admissible as an excited utterance pursuant to section 90.803(2), Florida Statutes (1993). See Allison v. State, 661 So. 2d 889, 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Ware v. State, 596 So. 2d 1200, 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Furthermore, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion in finding the statement relevant. In rejecting Sliney’s final challenge to the transcript as without merit, we note that in an abundance of caution, the tri…
-
Floyd v. State, 18 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 2009)…xcited utterance where it was made shortly after the victim’s murder, the de-clarant was in a highly agitated state when he made the statements, and the declarant feared for his own life because of the homicide he had just witnessed); Ware v. State, 596 So. 2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (declarant’s call to 911 after finding her son bleeding profusely from a neck wound qualified as an excited utterance). Floyd also contends that trial counsel was deficient for the failure to object to Figuero’s comment tha…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Garcia v. State, 492 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1986)
- Darty v. State, 161 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 509 F.2d 1342 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Annita Louise Kennedy v. State, 385 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Garcia v. Florida, 479 U.S. 1022 (U.S. 1986)
- Kinnell v. Maschner, 479 U.S. 1022 (U.S. 1986)
- McPEEK v. Wainwright, 168 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1964)
- Peel v. State, 168 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1964)
- Murray v. State, 382 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- E.B. v. State, 531 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)