Summary
holding police officer's hearsay testimony was harmless error because "under the standards of State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), no prejudice appears."
Summary of this case from A.O. v. StateOpinion
No. 86-1531.
August 11, 1987.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Arthur Maginnis, J.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Feiler Feiler and Loree Rene Feiler, Sp. Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Margarita Muina Febres, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ.
The trial court's admission of hearsay in the police officer's testimony concerning the alleged victim's description of the defendant was error; we conclude, however, that the error was harmless because the officer's testimony impeached rather than bolstered the victim's testimony, and thus, under the standards of State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), no prejudice appears. Silveira-Hernandez v. State, 495 So.2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Appellant's other point lacks merit.
Affirmed.