DAVID RODRIGUEZ, 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.
David Rodriguez appealed his conviction for aggravated battery with great bodily harm, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting three hearsay statements. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statements qualified as excited utterances and were properly admitted.
The trial court properly admitted the three statements as excited utterances because they satisfied all three elements: there was a startling event (the battery), the statements were made before time for reflection, and the speakers were under the stress of excitement caused by the event.
[1] A hearsay statement is admissible as an excited utterance if it is made under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event before there is time for reflection.
[2] A child's statement that her father was killing her mother, made while running from an apartment in a desperate and panicked state, qualifies as an excited utterance.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A hearsay statement is an excited utterance when: (1) there is an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement, (2) the person made the statement before there was time for reflection, and (3) the person made the statement while under the stress of the excitement caused by the startling event.”
Establishes the three-part test for admitting excited utterances under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Rodriguez was punched in the face when she opened her apartment door. A neighbor, Mr. Perez, witnessed their daughter run out screaming that her …
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 Excited Utterance Exception To Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
David Rodriguez appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated battery with great bodily harm. He argues that the trial court erroneously allowed three hearsay statements into evidence. We affirm.
Mr. Rodriguez’s wife was at his apartment with their daughter. Someone knocked. When Mrs. Rodriguez opened the door, she was punched in the face. Mr. Perez, a neighbor, was standing in a nearby parking lot, when he saw a little girl run out of the apartment screaming, looking desperate and panicked. She was yelling that her father was killing her mother. Mrs. Rodriguez came stumbling out. Her eyes were swollen and her face was bleeding. She got into her car, locked the door, and began honking the horn.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Perez saw Mr. Rodriguez come out of the apartment. Mr. Rodriguez began screaming and banging on the car window. Mrs. Rodriguez refused to open the car door. Mr. Rodriguez left the scene and Mr. Perez approached the car. Mrs. Rodriguez was afraid and was looking to see whether her attacker was still there. She opened the car door and told Mr. Perez that her husband attacked her.
Deputies arrived. Mrs. Rodriguez remained in the car, crying and hysterical. *746She was having difficulty talking and complained of pain. She told the deputies that Mr. Rodriguez hit her.
At trial, Mr. Perez and one of the deputies testified as to the statements made by Mrs. Rodriguez and her daughter. After the State rested, Mr. Rodriguez moved for a judgment of acquittal. But for the three hearsay statements, he contends that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal because the circumstantial evidence is equally consistent with his reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See Beasley v. State, 774 So.2d 649, 657 (Fla.2000).
The trial court properly admitted the three statements as excited utterances. See § 90.808(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). A hearsay statement is an excited utterance when: (1) there is an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement, (2) the person made the statement before there was time for reflection, and (3) the person made the statement while under the stress of the excitement caused by the startling event. Rogers v. State, 660 So.2d 237, 240 (Fla.1995) (citing State v. Jano, 524 So.2d 660, 661 (Fla.1988)).
Rivera v. State, 718 So.2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), is instructive. There, the Fourth District held that statements that a battery victim made to a police officer fifteen minutes after the officer saw the victim screaming and waving her hands while crying qualified as excited utterances. Id. at 858. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court committed no error in admitting the excited utterances of Mrs. Rodriguez and her daughter.
Affirmed.
WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Beasley v. State, 774 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Bret Edmund Jano, 524 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1988)
- Rogers v. State, 660 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1995)
- Rivera v. State, 718 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)