CARLOS MARTINEZ-URBINA
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.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the reliability and admissibility of child hearsay statements under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes, and the defendant failed to properly preserve objections to cumulative or prejudicial evidence.
[1] A defendant fails to properly preserve an objection to evidence under Florida Evidence Code section 90.403 when the objection is based solely on grounds such as 'cumulati…
[2] A trial court's determination of the reliability and admissibility of child hearsay statements pursuant to section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes, is reviewed for abuse of…
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“In order to lay a foundation for the business record exception to the hearsay rule, it is not necessary to call the person who actually prepared the document. The record custodian or any qualified witness who has the requisite knowledge to testify as to how the record was made can lay the necessary foundation.”
Court citing Osagie v. State regarding foundation requirements for business records exception to hearsay rule.
Carlos Martinez-Urbina appealed a conviction from Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The appeal involved challenges to the admission of child hearsay st…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 4, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1668 Lower Tribunal No. F20-8684 ________________
Carlos Martinez-Urbina, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa Tinkler Mendez, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Rodriguez v. State, 77 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (applying abuse of discretion review to a trial court's determination of the reliability and admissibility of child hearsay statements pursuant to section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes); Osagie v. State, 58 So. 3d 307, 309 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“In order to lay a foundation for the business record exception to the hearsay rule, it is not necessary to call the person who actually prepared the document. The record custodian or any qualified witness who has the requisite knowledge to testify as to how the record was made can lay the necessary foundation.”) (citation omitted); Reynolds v. State, 660 So. 2d 778, 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“By defense counsel's simply objecting to testimony on the grounds that it is ‘cumulative,’ without more, the trial court is not alerted to the fact that the objection is based upon a contention that the probative value of the otherwise admissible evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”) (citing Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1992)); Bass v. State, 35 So. 3d 43, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding defendant did not properly preserve 90.403 objection where, during the hearing, defendant’s objections “centered on the grounds that the witness' testimony regarding the victim's statements would be prior consistent statements and would, therefore, improperly bolster the victim's trial testimony.”); Id. (“Had the appellant's argument been properly preserved,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)
- Bass v. State, 35 So. 3d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Maldonado v. State, 77 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Lowery v. State, 58 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)