HARRY W. SEIFERT, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court held that while the trial court properly admitted child hearsay testimony under section 90.803(23) despite adequate preservation of the objection, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
A trial court's admission of child hearsay testimony under section 90.803(23) constitutes harmless error when the defendant properly preserves the objection but the evidence is not material to the verdict.
[1] A defendant's objection to the admission of child hearsay testimony under section 90.803(23) is properly preserved when the objection goes to the sufficiency of the evide…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarry W. Seifert was tried in a case involving child hearsay testimony admitted under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989). Seifert objected to…
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 Evidentiary Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
We have for review Seifert v. State, 616 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), in which the district court held that Harry W. Seifert had not preserved an issue regarding the introduction of child hearsay under section 90.-803(23), Florida Statutes (1989), because he failed to properly object to the introduction of that testimony at trial. Alternatively, the district court stated that, even if the objections had been proper, the admission of the testimony at issue was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We accepted jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution, based on conflict with Fricke v. State, 561 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Our recent decisions in State v. Townsend, 635 So. 2d 949 (Fla.1994), Feller v. State, 19 Fla. L. Weekly S196 — So. 2d(Fla. April 21, 1994), and Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1994), address the preservation of error issue. Upon review of the record, we determine that Seifert’s objections were proper and that the district court erroneously characterized Seifert’s objections as objections that merely went to the nature, rather than the sufficiency, of the evidence. Consequently, we disapprove the district court’s opinion to the extent it mischaracter-ized Seifert’s objections. Nevertheless, given that admission of the testimony was harmless error, we approve the result of the district court’s opinion. We also disapprove Fricke to the extent it is inconsistent with our holdings in Townsend, Feller, and Hopkins. We decline to address the other issues raised by Seifert.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Townsend, 635 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1994)
- Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1994)
- Espinosa v. State, 561 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Seifert v. State, 616 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)