ROGER PETER MORRISON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Obstructing Or Opposing An Officer With Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
Roger Peter Morrison appeals his judgments and sentences for battery of a law enforcement officer and obstructing or opposing an officer with violence. The only issue raised on appeal is the trial court’s decision to admit, as an excited utterance, a digital recording of a 911 telephone call from an alleged victim of domestic violence. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (2012). Mr. Morrison is correct that the trial court erroneously failed to conduct the hearing or make the required predicate findings described in Tucker v. State, 884 So.2d 168, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), before admitting this evidence as an excited utterance. Nevertheless, the 911 recording was relevant only to a charge of domestic violence for which the jury found Mr. Morrison not guilty. The 911 call was the event that prompted law enforcement to come to the location where Mr. Morrison subsequently committed the offenses on the officers. As a result, the improperly admitted evidence was not relevant to the charges for which he was convicted. We have reviewed the record and conclude that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986).
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fredrick Livingston v. State, 219 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…terance exception as a basis for the admission of the challenged testimony. Thus, the trial court did not conduct a hearing or make the required predicate findings before admitting the evidence. See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (2013); Morrison v. State, 161 So. 3d 564, 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Tucker v. State, 884 So. 2d 168, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Mariano v. State, 933 So. 2d 111, 115-16 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Indeed, the testimony was not admitted as an excited utterance. The first mention of this alternative leg…
-
Roop v. State, 228 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…an issue on appeal, .and names only the excited utterance exception in his brief. See I.R.C. v. State, 968 So. 2d 583, 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (explaining that appellate courts reverse only on the basis of arguments presented); cf. Morrison v. State, 161 So. 3d 564, 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (reaching argument concerning absence of hearing and predicate findings where appellant specifically raised the issue), Second, die predicate "the State laid during trial was directiy related to the elements of the excited ut…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Little Tommy Tucker v. State, 884 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)