JOHN RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Excited Utterance Exception To Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We reject 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” hearsay as defined by section 90.801(1), Florida Statutes (1995). See Anderson v. State, 655 So. 2d 1118, 1120 (Fla.1995) (“we decline to enunciáte a blanket rule that no conviction can stand based solely on hearsay testimony”); see also State v. Green, 667 So. 2d 756 (Fla.1995). See generally C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 802.3 (1997).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant Williams v. State, 714 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…made within the framework of a Confrontation Clause discussion, we believe their reasoning is equally applicable in assessing the sufficiency of evidence necessary to sustain a conviction based solely on an excited utterance. See Rodriguez v. State, 696 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).5 For the reasons discussed above, we do not believe that Green controls the present ease, or that this opinion conflicts with Green or any of the cases relied upon by the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant’s implicit suggesti…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Green, 667 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1995)
- Anderson v. State, 655 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1995)
- Romero v. State, 670 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Everhart v. State, 592 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- State v. Barnes, 602 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1992)