MICHAEL ANTHONY ARCAMONE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court's admission of a victim's excited utterance captured in body-camera video does not constitute an abuse of discretion, but a probation supervision fee exceeding the statutory maximum without oral pronouncement of deviation is reversible error.
[1] A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of an excited utterance exception to hearsay is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[2] A probation supervision fee imposed under Florida Statutes section 948.09(1)(b) may not exceed forty dollars per month without an accompanying oral pronouncement explaini…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 essential elements necessary to fall within the excited utterance exception are that (1) there must be 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 be made while the person is under the stress of excitement caused by the event.”
Court citing State v. Jano, 524 So. 2d 660, 661 (Fla. 1988) to establish the standard for excited utterance exception to hearsay.
Arcamone was convicted of misdemeanor battery. The trial court admitted the investigating officer's body-camera video of the officer's interview with …
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
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 3, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D22-1836 Lower Tribunal No. M19-4397 ________________ Michael Anthony Arcamone, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Betsy Alvarez-Zane, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas A. Lynch, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Appellant Michael Anthony Arcamone challenges both his conviction for misdemeanor battery and that portion of the resulting sentence imposing a fifty-five-dollar monthly fee for supervision of his probation. Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admission into evidence of the investigating officer’s body-camera video of the officer’s interview with the victim, we affirm Arcamone’s conviction. See State v. Jano, 524 So. 2d 660, 661 (Fla. 1988) (“The essential elements necessary to fall within the excited utterance exception are that (1) there must be 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 be made while the person is under the stress of excitement caused by the event.”); Young v. State, 979 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2008) (holding that a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of the excited utterance exception to hearsay is reviewed for an abuse of discretion). Because the trial court imposed a monthly probation supervision fee in excess of Florida Statutes section 948.09(1)(b)’s forty-dollar fee without any accompanying oral pronouncement explaining the deviation, we are compelled to reverse that portion of Arcamone’s sentence. We remand the case to the trial court to enter a corrected sentencing order, reducing
3 Arcamone’s probation supervision fee to forty dollars per month. See Paris v. State, 337 So. 3d 2, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bret Edmund Jano, 524 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1988)
- Abernathy v. State, 337 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
- Young v. State, 979 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)