STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MACEO WRIGHT, 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.
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal quashed a trial court's blanket order excluding excited utterance statements made by a murder victim to various people on the day of her death. The court held that excited utterances do not require independent corroboration of the startling event and are not automatically inadmissible merely because they were separated by time.
The trial court erred in issuing a blanket exclusion and must instead rule on each statement individually. Excited utterances do not require independent corroboration of the startling event, and statements are not per se inadmissible merely because they were separated by a period of time from the allegedly startling event.
[1] A trial court's blanket exclusion of alleged victim statements under the excited utterance exception constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, requi…
[2] Corroboration of the startling event is not required for the admission of statements under the excited utterance exception to hearsay.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in entering a blanket order granting respondent's motion in limine as to all such statements. On remand, the court must rule on each statement individually.”
Establishes that the trial court's blanket exclusion violated the law and requires individual statement-by-statement review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaceo Wright was charged with murdering his estranged wife and with kidnapping and assault with a firearm earlier that day. The victim made statements…
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 Excited Utterance Exception To Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
We grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order granting respondent’s motion in limine. The order provided for a blanket exclusion of several statements alleged to have been made by the victim, respondent’s estranged wife, the morning of the day she was murdered. Respondent was also charged with kidnapping her and assaulting her with a firearm earlier that day. We have jurisdiction for certiorari review of such orders pursuant to State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1988).
The statements excluded - were those alleged to have been made by the victim to coworkers, relatives, a 911 operator, and to officers investigating the alleged kidnapping and assault. The state argued to the trial court these statements were admissible under the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule, section 90.803(2), Florida Statutes (1993).
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in entering a blanket order granting respondent’s motion in limine as to all such statements. On remand, the court must rule on each statement individually. Accordingly, we do not direct the trial court which statements to admit or exclude. In order to give the trial court some guidance, however, we address certain arguments made by respondent.
We reject respondent’s contention that admission of excited utterances requires the same type of independent corroboration of the startling event as would pertain to corroboration of the existence of a conspiracy before a coconspirator’s statements may be admitted. See Romani v. State, 542 So. 2d 984 (Fla.1989). Because Florida’s “excited utterance” statute is virtually identical to the federal statute, we are guided by federal case law in this regard. Moore v. State, 452 So. 2d 559 (Fla.1984). United States v. Moore, 791 F. 2d 566 (7th Cir.1986), supports the proposition that corroboration of the exciting event is not required. The declaration itself and the declarant’s condition were sufficient to establish that the startling event had occurred.
We further hold that the statements sought to be excluded are not per se outside the “excited utterance” exception because they were separated by a period of time. In Jackson v. State, 419 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), we held that statements separated by over one hour in time were admissible under section 90.803(2). See also Conley v. State, 592 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), reversed on other grounds, 620 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1993) (two statements to the same officer, separated by thirty-five minutes to an hour).
Accordingly, we quash the order in limine, and remand for the trial court to consider the admissibility of each statement individually, under section 90.803(2), and consistent with this opinion.
KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Belafonte Lopez Rosier v. State, 243 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Williams v. State, 452 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Gary v. State, 5 So. 3d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Jones v. State, 907 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Sequoia v. State, 678 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur. -2-…
-
Jackson v. State, 202 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…2d DCA 2009); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Williams v. State, 452 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Sterling v. State, 728 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Sequoia v. State, 678 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). KHOUZAM, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)
- Conley v. State, 620 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1993)
- Jackson v. State, 419 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Olga Romani, M.D. v. State, 542 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1989)
- THE Florida BAR v. Nuccio, 452 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1984)
- United States v. Moore, 791 F.2d 566 (7th Cir. 1986)
- Moore v. State, 452 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1984)
- Conley v. State, 592 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)