KAMAE

v.

HAWAII

Citator

Cited By

• Dewberry v. State, 905 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
  …ing a vehicle stop. In order to determine whether the officer did have a reasonable suspicion, we must consider the totality of the circumstances as viewed by an experienced police officer. See Taylor v. State, 855 So. 2d 1 (Fla.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1605, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004); Enich v. State, 838 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Furtive movements may be sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion that an individual has a weapon and thus justify a pat-down search. See Lightbourne v…
• Peterka v. State, 890 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2004)
  …he aggressor. Cf. Taylor v. State, 855 So. 2d 1, 20 n. 21 (Fla.2003) (“[A] victim-declarant’s statements cannot be admitted during the State’s case-in-chief to rebut evidence or testimony that has not been introduced by the defense.”), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1605, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004). Further, Peterka’s taped statement was introduced by the State, not by Peterka. In Stoll v. State, 762 So. 2d 870, 875 (Fla.2000), we rejected the State’s argument that a witness’s testimony as to the victim…
• Rodgers v. State, 934 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2006)
  ….2003) (stating that “even if the trial judge erred in rejecting this factor as nonmitigating or in failing to assign it any weight, any error would be harmless, given the minimal amount of mitigation this factor would have provided”), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1605, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004). III. CONCLUSION As explained above, the trial court’s decision should be affirmed. The evidence that the majority finds so pivotal was irrelevant, and even if deemed relevant, its value as mitigation is min…