WILLIE JAMES THOMAS, 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.
Willie Thomas appealed his conviction for armed burglary, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and cocaine possession, challenging the trial court's evidentiary ruling admitting an excited utterance and claiming the trial court abandoned its neutral role. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the victim's statement "he has a knife, he has a knife" properly qualified as an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
The trial court properly admitted the victim's statement as an excited utterance. All three requirements for the excited utterance exception were satisfied: a home invasion constituted a startling event; the statement was made during the ongoing struggle; and the declarant was under stress caused by being attacked by a stranger with a knife.
[1] An appellate court reviews a trial court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, subject to the rules of evidence.
[2] A trial court's determination of whether testimony is hearsay is reviewed de novo.
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“An excited utterance, or "[a] statement ... relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant [is] under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition," is a hearsay exception.”
Establishes the legal definition and standard for the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule 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 intelligenceDuring a home invasion, an eyewitness heard a loud noise from the patio late at night and rushed outside to find a stranger (Thomas) fighting with the…
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
Willie Thomas appeals his final judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty of armed burglary of a dwelling, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and possession of cocaine. Thomas argues that we should reverse his conviction and sentence because the trial court abandoned its neutral role during the trial, including giving him incorrect legal advice, and incorrectly applied the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. We affirm on all grounds and write only to address the application of excited utterance exception to one of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.
The testimony at issue is an eyewitness’s description of an altercation between Thomas and the victim, during which the victim yelled out “he has a knife, he has a knife.” The trial court allowed the eyewitness to testify regarding what she heard the victim say. Thomas asserts that the trial court erroneously admitted this testimony as an excited utterance.
An appellate court reviews evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, though the rules of evidence limit this discretion. Padgett v. State, 73 So.3d 902, 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). A trial court’s determination regarding whether testimony is hearsay is reviewed de novo. Id.
Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008). Hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls within an exception. §§ 90.802-.803, Fla. Stat. (2008). An excited utterance, or “[a] statement ... relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant [is] under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition,” is a hearsay exception. § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). Courts have interpreted the statute as requiring three elements for an excited utterance to be admissible: “(1) there must have been an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement; (2) the statement must have been made before there was time to contrive or misrepresent; and (3) the statement must have been made while the person was under the stress of excitement caused by the startling event.” Mariano v. State, 933 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla. 4th DCA *9302006) (quoting Stoll v. State, 762 So.2d 870, 873 (Fla.2000)).
The party seeking to qualify a statement as an excited utterance must lay a proper foundation for its admission. Mariano, 933 So.2d at 115. Here, the witness testified that she heard a loud noise coming from the patio late at night. She rushed outside to find a stranger fighting with the victim and she joined the struggle. During the altercation, the victim exclaimed, “He has a knife, he has a knife.” This testimony establishes that all three requirements were met, since a home invasion constitutes a startling event, the statement was made at the time the struggle was in progress, and the person who made the statement was being attacked by a stranger holding a knife. On the testimony presented by the eyewitness, the trial court correctly ruled that the excited utterance exception applied to the eyewitness’s statement.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON and CONNER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Queior, 191 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 2016)…So. 2d at 646. While hearsay is admissible in a VOP proceeding, it must be supported by competent, nonhearsay evidence. Id. [*391] Whether evidence is competent, nonhearsay evidence is a legal question subject to de novo review. See Thomas v. State, 125 So. 3d 928, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (explaining that,while evidentiary ruling's áre reviewed for abuse of discretion, "whether ' testimony is hearsay is reviewed de novo ”), . The Eighth Circuit in Bell analyzed the reliability of the urinalysis in the contex…
-
Fredrick Livingston v. State, 219 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…ras under the stress of excitement caused.by the startling event. Stoll v. State, 762 So. 2d 870, 873 (Fla. 2000). “[T]he party seeking to qualify a statement as an excited utterance must lay a proper foundation for its admission.” Thomas v. State, 125 So. 3d 928, 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing Mariano v. State, 933 So. 2d 111, 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). The foundation may be laid by testimony establishing all three requirements. See id. Here, by ruling that the evidence constituted an excited utterance, th…
-
Roop v. State, 228 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…. State, 689 So. 2d 239, 251 (Fla. 1996)); see also Hayward, 24 So. 3d at 29 (relying on Hudson for the same proposition). The proponent of an excited utterance must lay a proper foundation establishing each of these three elements. Thomas v. State, 125 So. 3d 928, 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); see also Tucker v. State, 884 So. 2d 168, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (requiring that a preponderance of the evidence establish all three elements). A trial court’s decision that the.-proponent of the statement has laid that fou…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stoll v. State, 762 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2000)
- Mariano v. State, 933 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Padgett v. State, 73 So. 3d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)