ALEXANDER LUKAJ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
BARFIELD, C.J.
The trial court abused its discretion by permitting, over defense objection, a store security guard with no personal knowledge of the value of garments stolen from the store to testify as to their value based solely upon price tags affixed to the garments, without a proper foundation having been laid for the admission of such testimony as a “business records” exception to the hearsay rule, section 90.801 et seq., Florida Statutes (1997). Appellant’s conviction for grand theft is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court with directions to adjudicate him guilty of the offense of petit theft and resentence him accordingly.
LAWRENCE and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hutcheson v. State, 903 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…minal contempt conviction. Where a claim of false or perjured testimony is involved, the accused must, prior to the adjudication of guilt, be given an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. See e.g. Tejada v. State, 729 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Walker v. State, 559 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Hutcheson was confronted with his sworn statement, was asked why he should not be held in contempt, and was then cut off when he began to offer an explanation for that stateme…
-
F.T. v. State, 146 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…was laid, the price indicated on the price tag could be introduced and considered as some evidence of the actual market value of the shirt. . It would also appear that this analysis conflicts with the decision of our sister court in Lukaj v. State, 729 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). However, we do not agree that a business records foundation must be laid before a witness is permitted to testify to her contemporaneous observation of the contents of the price tag affixed to the stolen item of retail merchandi…
-
Leon v. Moore, 734 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…v. State, 415 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See generally Scott v. State, 519 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The fact that the First District has recently come to a different conclusion on similar facts, see Lukaj v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D621, 729 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), is immaterial. The effectiveness of appellate counsel is judged as of the time of the appeal. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). (“A fair assessment of attorney performance re…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence