MCKENZIE
v.
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.
Statements by victims identifying the defendant as the shooter, statements about intent to visit a cell phone store, and statements made during the firearm loading were all properly admitted under established hearsay exceptions.
[1] A victim's statement identifying the accused as the shooter is admissible as a statement of identification and is not barred by the hearsay rule under Fla. …
[2] A statement about a person's future intent or action is not hearsay when not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
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 intelligenceMcKenzie was convicted of first degree murder and second degree attempted murder. The trial court admitted several statements from victims, including …
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 Statement Of Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
January 10, 2024 PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for first degree murder and second degree attempted murder claiming error in admitting certain statements. The testimony that one of the victims identified Appellant as the shooter was properly admitted as a statement of identification and was not hearsay. See § 90.801(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022). The statement that Appellant intended to go to a cell phone store was not offered for truth of the matter asserted, and so it was also not hearsay. See § 90.801(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The statement made by one of the victims while Appellant loaded his firearm was properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. Finally, there was no error in assessing the costs, and Appellant waived his right to object to the restitution ordered.
AFFIRMED.
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROWE and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.