Monfiston v. State

Appellant, Franklin “Frankie” Monfi-ston, challenges his conviction of attempted voluntary manslaughter. He raises three issues: (1) whether the court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) whether the court erred in admitting hearsay evidence as an excited utterance; and (3) whether the court failed to conduct a Faretta1 inquiry when appellant requested to represent himself. We affirm as to all issues, remanding only to correct a clerical error in the judgment.

On the day of the incident, Carl Roche, the victim, attempted to sell drugs to Laurent Adjuste, one of Monfiston’s…