RODRIGUEZ v. STATE (1997)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

John RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 96-1686.

Decided: July 09, 1997

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

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.

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.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network