JAMES CHARLES WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Affirmed conviction for first degree murder and manslaughter where defendant's claims of improper hearsay testimony and references to his silence were without merit.
Trial court properly denied motions for mistrial based on hearsay objections and did not commit reversible error in permitting testimony regarding the defendant's silence.
[1] A statement inadmissible to prove its truth may be admissible for other purposes, such as to show the declarant's state of mind, and hearsay objections are unavailing whe…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of first degree murder and manslaughter following a jury trial. The prosecution elicited testimony containing references to th…
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 State Of Mind Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his conviction for first degree murder and manslaughter following a jury trial.
Defendant first contends that the trial judge erred in denying his motions for mistrial on the grounds that the prosecution elicited improper and highly prejudicial references to him as being the perpetrator of the crimes, and that this testimony was hearsay.' We cannot agree.
Merely because a statement would not be admissible for one purpose (i. e. its truth or falsity) does not mean it is not admissible for another (e. g. to show the declarant’s state of mind). Hunt v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 327 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1976). Further, the hearsay objection is unavailing when the inquiry is not as to the truth of the words spoken, but merely whether they were in fact spoken. General Tire of Miami Beach, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 332 F. 2d 58 (5th Cir. 1964). The trial judge properly instructed the jury with respect to the statements to which defendant objected, and we find that the motions for mistrial were correctly denied.
Defendant secondly argues that the court committed reversible error in permitting the prosecution to elicit from the arresting officer testimony which indicated that he had exercised his right to remain silent in the face of interrogation. Our review of the officer’s testimony did not reflect that the defendant had exercised his right to remain silent in face of police questioning and to assert that it was so construed by the jury would be pure speculation. Cf. Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632, 635 (Fla.1974).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McArthur Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)…19, 94 S.Ct. 2253, 2260, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 (1974). Merely because a statement is not admissible for one purpose does not mean it is inadmissible for another purpose. Hunt v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 327 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1976); Williams v. State, 338 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The hearsay objection is unavailing when the inquiry is not directed to the truth of the words spoken, but, rather, to whether they were in fact spoken. Id. In the examination of Detective Ojeda the court sustained defense couns…
-
Taylor v. State, 855 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2003)…211, 219, 94 S.Ct. 2253, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 (1974). Merely because a statement is not admissible for one purpose does not mean it is inadmissible for another purpose. Hunt v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 327 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1976); Williams v. State, 338 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The hearsay objection is unavailing when the inquiry is not directed to the truth of the words spoken, but, rather, to whether they were in fact spoken. Id. See also State v. Baird, 572 So. 2d 904 (Fla.1991). The statements att…
-
Foster v. State, 778 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2000)…he one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” A statement may, however, be offered to prove a [*915] variety of things besides its truth. See Williams v. State, 338 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (“Merely because a statement would not be admissible for one purpose (i.e., its truth or falsity) does not mean it is not admissible for another (e.g., to show the declarant’s state of mind.”)). A statement may be offered, for ins…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1974)
- Hunt v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 327 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1976)
- The Gen. Tire OF Miami Beach, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 332 F.2d 58 (5th Cir. 1964)