JAVIER ROMERO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JAVIER ROMERO, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
670 So. 2d 129
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1996)
Caution
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The only point on appeal that merits discussion is the trial court’s admission of the victim’s hearsay statement made to a police officer only minutes after the alleged incident occurred identifying the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. Because the State did show that there was a relatively short interval of time between the time of the incident and the police officer’s arrival on the scene, we find that the trial court properly admitted the statement identifying the defendant as an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. Joseph v. State, 636 So. 2d 777, 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivera v. State, 718 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…fifteen minutes had elapsed between the time of the altercation and the victim’s emotional statements to the officer and (2) the victim’s visibly shaken appearance upon the officer’s arrival. See Rogers, 660 So. 2d at 237; see also Romero v. State, 670 So. 2d 129, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Joseph v. State, 636 So. 2d 777, 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The state further proved that the victim made the statements that implicated the appellant while she was under the stress of the battery, as evidenced by the fact tha…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 696 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ject the defendant’s claim to a directed verdict on the ground that evidence that the victim identified him to an investigating police officer, which was properly admitted as an excited utterance, see § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); Romero v. State, 670 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), was sufficient to support the conviction. Everhart v. State, 592 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 602 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1992), is not controlling because the sole evidence relied upon there was apparently “pure” hearsa…
-
Whipple v. State, 736 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 90.803(2), Florida Statutes (1997); Romero v. State, 670 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).…
Authorities Cited
- Joseph v. State, 636 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)