From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 9, 1997
696 So. 2d 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Opinion

Case No. 96-1686

Opinion filed July 9, 1997.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Amy N. Dean, Judge.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Lisa Walsh, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Douglas Gurnic, Assistant Attorney General (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GODERICH, JJ.


We reject the defendant's claim to a directed verdict on the ground that evidence that the victim identified him to an investigating police officer, which was properly admitted as an excited utterance, see § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); Romero v. State, 670 So.2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), was sufficient to support the conviction. Everhart v. State, 592 So.2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 602 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1992), is not controlling because the sole evidence relied upon there was apparently "pure" hearsay as defined by section 90.801(1), Florida Statutes (1995). See Anderson v. State, 655 So.2d 1118, 1120 (Fla. 1995)("we decline to enunciate a blanket rule that no conviction can stand based solely on hearsay testimony"); see also State v. Green, 667 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1995). See generally C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 802.3 (1997).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 9, 1997
696 So. 2d 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOHN RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jul 9, 1997

Citations

696 So. 2d 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

Although these statements were made within the framework of a Confrontation Clause discussion, we believe…