Hall v. State

1 Citing case

  1. Hammond v. Mulligan

    667 So. 2d 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 1 times
    Stating that opposing counsel's accusations in closingargument of a conspiracy between the plaintiff and her physician to trick the jury and by plaintiff's counsel to “fool” the jury by hiding relevant evidence from them amounted to fundamental, reversible error

    The record contains a reference to a tentative diagnosis by Dr. Jacques Caldwell following Caldwell's examination of appellant as relayed by her to Marrese at the time of her visit. We find that the trial court erred by denying appellants' motion for mistrial on the ground that appellees' cross-examination of Marrese concerning appellant's statements to him pertaining to her visit with Caldwell was inadmissible hearsay not subject to any exception. See Hill v. State, 549 So.2d 179, 181 (Fla. 1989); Minnis v. State, 645 So.2d 160, 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Hitchcock v. State, 636 So.2d 572, 573-574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Escoto v. State, 624 So.2d 836, 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Hall v. State, 622 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). See also § 90.801(1)(c), Fla.Stat. (1993); Peterka v. State, 640 So.2d 59, 68 (Fla. 1994), cert. den., ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 940, 130 L.Ed.2d 884 (1995) (hearsay is a statement other than one made by declarant while testifying at trial offered to prove truth of matter asserted); Sibley v. State, 636 So.2d 893, 893-894 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Hitchcock, 636 So.2d at 573; Hall, 622 So.2d at 1132.