BOBBY RANDOLPH DURHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
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 affirmed the trial court's admission of hearsay statements from a child victim under Florida's child hearsay exception, finding that any reliance on corroborating evidence was harmless given the court's multiple independent findings of reliability.
Hearsay statements of a child victim are properly admissible under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(23) where the trial court makes multiple independent findings of reliability, and any consideration of corroborating evidence is harmless error.
[1] Corroborating evidence of abuse may be considered in determining the reliability of child hearsay statements under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial court admitted hearsay statements made by a child victim in a case against Bobby Randolph Durham, relying on findings of reliability and minim…
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 Child Victim Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the face of appellant’s claim that the trial court improperly utilized a minimal amount of corroborating evidence to determine that hearsay statements of the child victim would be admissible under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2000), we affirm. We note that the court made numerous appropriate findings of reliability that are not challenged by appellant, and also that the trial court specifically mentioned the corroborating evidence only with regard to one of the four statements made by the child. See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 823, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) (“[W]e think the presence of corroborating evidence more appropriately indicates that any error in admitting the statement might be harmless, rather than that any basis exists for presuming the declarant to be trustworthy.” (footnote omitted)); Seaman v. State, 608 So. 2d 71, 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“[A]s-suming arguendo that the point was properly preserved for purposes of appeal, the trial court found the child hearsay statements reliable on multiple grounds amply supported by the record. We are satisfied that any consideration by the trial court of the corroborating physical evidence of abuse was entirely harmless.”).
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, MINER, and KAHN, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnes v. State, 864 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…unt One, and Appellant was sentenced under the Criminal Punishment Code to 3 years and 4 months [*1202] of incarceration. On the authority of Reed v. State, 783 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), we affirmed the judgment and sentence. Barnes v. State, 815 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Subsequently, in Reed, 837 So. 2d at 366, the Supreme Court of Florida found fundamental error where an inaccurate definition of the disputed element of malice in the standard jury instruction reduced the State’s burden of proo…
-
Barnes v. State, 852 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2003)…WELLS, J. We have for review Barnes v. State, 815 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), a per curiam decision affirming the lower court’s decision and citing State v. Medlin, 273 So. 2d 394 (Fla.1973), and Reed v. State, 783 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We accepted jurisdiction based on this Court’s review of R…
Authorities Cited
- Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (U.S. 1990)
- Perez v. Singletary, 608 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Seaman v. State, 608 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)