FERNANDO AUGUSTO GUSMAO, 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.
Fernando Gusmao appeals his conviction for grand theft of over $100,000. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the admission of hearsay evidence, the characterization of checks as worthless, or the sufficiency of evidence regarding criminal intent.
The trial court committed no error. The hearsay evidence was properly admitted under Florida Statutes sections 90.803(6) and 90.803(18)(a). The characterization of the checks as worthless was supported by evidence showing insufficient funds and was not objected to at trial. The evidence, particularly Gusmao's own out-of-court admission, was sufficient to support the conviction.
[1] Documents are properly admitted under the business records hearsay exception when they meet statutory requirements.
[2] Statements made by a party opponent are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the challenged documents were properly admitted under the hearsay exception for business records, section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes (2008), and the other challenged statements as admissions by a party opponent”
Establishes the valid hearsay exceptions under which the trial court admitted evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGusmao was convicted of grand theft of over $100,000. He wrote checks in the amounts of $130,000 and $160,000 without sufficient funds in his accounts…
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 Admissions By A Party Opponent cases and more on FLexlaw
Fernando Augusto Gusmao appeals from his conviction and sentence on a charge of grand theft of over $100,000. We have carefully considered each issue raised on appeal, and find no error. With respect to Gusmao’s hearsay arguments, the challenged documents were properly *94admitted under the hearsay exception for business records, section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes (2008), and the other challenged statements as admissions by a party opponent. § 90.803(18)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008).1 Next, Gusmao complains that the trial court erred by allowing checks that he wrote in the amounts of $130,000 and $160,000 to be referred to as “worthless.” Not only was there no objection to this characterization at trial, but the evidence clearly supported the description. Gus-mao’s banking records showed that he did not have sufficient funds in the accounts on which the checks were written to cover them. Finally, Gusmao argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence of his intent to commit the crime, so that his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted. We agree with the State that there would have been sufficient circumstantial evidence of Gusmao’s criminal intent to submit the case to the jury even without Gusmao’s admission. See Brewer v. State, 413 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (en banc), rev. denied, 426 So.2d 25 (Fla.1983). Given Gusmao’s out-of-court admission to the crime, this argument completely lacks merit.2
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, LAWSON, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004)
- Brewer v. State, 413 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- L.R.W. A Child v. State, 848 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)