HECTOR MANUEL ALVAREZ, 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.
Hector Manuel Alvarez was convicted of sexual battery on a minor. On rehearing, the court addressed whether the trial court erred in excluding the victim's out-of-court statement that her father was paying her to falsely accuse the defendant, ultimately affirming the conviction because the excluded testimony was admitted anyway during trial without objection.
The trial court erred in excluding the statement as inadmissible hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of its contents. However, the error was harmless because the same testimony was admitted without objection during the jury trial, effectively nullifying the erroneous ruling. The conviction is affirmed.
[1] A statement offered to prove that the speaker was being paid off to falsely accuse the defendant is not hearsay.
[2] An erroneous ruling excluding evidence is rendered harmless when the same evidence is admitted without objection later in the trial.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“That ruling was error. The statement was not hearsay, as it was not offered to prove the truth of its contents.”
Establishes that the trial court erred in excluding the victim's statement as hearsay because it was not offered for its truth.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnachaka Perez, a friend of the victim, testified about a telephone conversation with the victim. The victim allegedly told Perez that her father was …
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 Hearsay Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State seeks rehearing of our opinion of March 27, 2002, by which we reversed the convictions of Hector Manuel Alvarez and remanded for a new trial. We grant the State’s motion; withdraw our opinion of March 27; and substitute the following in its place.
Hector Manuel Alvarez appeals from judgments of conviction for numerous counts of sexual battery on a minor. We affirm.
Outside the presence of the jury, the State sought to exclude the statement of Anachaka Perez, a friend of the victim’s, that the victim had stated in a telephone conversation that “her [the victim’s] father was paying her off to say Hector [defendant] was molesting her.” The court ruled that statement inadmissible. That ruling was error. The statement was not hearsay, as it was not offered to prove the truth of its contents. See Kearney v. State, 689 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); see also section 90.801(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997). See generally Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 801.2 (2000 Edition).
However, when defense counsel resumed questioning Perez with the jury present, Perez testified without objection as follows:
Q: Can you tell the court please what you said to [K.P.], what she said to you, what was the conversation?
A: We were just talking about anything and everything, and I asked her if anything was bothering her, and she just mentioned something about her dad, Hector. Q: What did she mention?
A: That her father was paying her off to say Hector was molesting her. Q: Did she go into any more detail than that?
A: No, because Matías came back on the line. We were just talking.
Q: Did she ever tell you any other conversation in what way her father had paid her off?
A: Her father gave her a beeper, a call to let Kimberly live by herself. That is what she told me. I never knew if it was true or not.
In short, the testimony that the court excluded was nevertheless admitted without interruption or objection, in effect nullifying the trial court’s prior erroneous ruling.1 We find no merit in defendant’s remaining points on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
. Contrary to counsel’s representation in the initial brief, this testimony was not a mere proffer; it was heard and considered by the jury.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caballero v. State, 132 So. 3d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…ng he was not satisfied because he wanted counsel to call Velazquez as a witness. In his motion for rehearing, Defendant argued that characterizing Velazquez’s proposed testimony as hearsay did not negate its admissibility, citing Alvarez v. State, 817 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). In that case, the defendant was convicted of numerous counts of sexual battery on a minor. The trial court excluded, as hearsay, the victim’s friend’s statement that the victim told her that her (the victim’s) father was paying h…
-
Alvarez v. Crosby, 907 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…or objection, in effect nullifying the trial court’s prior erroneous ruling. (FN1) (FN1.) Contrary to counsel’s representation in the initial brief, this testimony was not a mere proffer; it was heard and considered by the jury. Alvarez v. State, 817 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). In 2003 Alvarez filed the present petition. He alleged (among other things) [*1234] that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to ever seek correction of an error in the record: an inaccurate notation in the trial t…
-
Harrell v. State, 108 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…nding testimony that victim’s father made a statement that once defendant was out of the way the family would be back together and happy again was not hearsay and would have shown bias or motive on the part of the victim’s father); Alvarez v. State, 817 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (finding testimony of victim’s friend that victim stated “[the victim’s] father was paying her off to say [defendant] was molesting her” was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of its contents). Accordingly,…
Authorities Cited
- Kearney v. State, 689 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)