JOSEPH C. POLLARD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The court held that the admission of a hearsay statement and a prosecutor's closing argument did not constitute reversible error.
The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery. The State admitted a witness's hearsay statement after laying a proper predicate…
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 Fair Comment On Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph C. Pollard appeals his conviction for first degree murder and armed robbery.
First, the hearsay statement of witness Simmons was properly admitted into evidence. Defense counsel had successfully objected on earlier occasions that the State had failed to lay a proper predicate for demonstrating that Mr. Simmons’ statement qualified as an excited utterance. The State ultimately laid the proper predicate. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1999); Stoll v. State, 762 So. 2d 870, 873 (Fla.2000); Damren v. State, 696 So. 2d 709, 713-14 (Fla.1997); Pope v. State, 679 So. 2d 710, 713 (Fla.1996). Once the proper predicate was laid, defense counsel quite properly made no further objection, and the statement was admitted into evidence.
Second, defendant-appellant Pollard contends that an unobjected-to portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument amounted to fundamental error. We disagree. The comment that the defendant’s girlfriend had helped dispose of the murder weapon was a fair comment on the evidence, being based on the defendant’s own confession. See Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1, 8 (Fla.1982). The comment that the State intended to prosecute Ms. Wright if successful in locating her was irrelevant, but when considered in context was not unfairly prejudicial to the defendant and certainly did not amount to fundamental error. See McDonald v. State, 743 So. 2d 501, 505 (Fla.1999).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- Pope v. State, 679 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1996)
- McArthur Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- McDONALD v. State, 743 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1999)
- Stoll v. State, 762 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2000)
- Damren v. State, 696 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1997)