Legal Opinion

Holborough v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 28, 2012No. 4D11-3552PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGross, J.

At the trial of this crime against a person, the trial court erred in allowing hearsay evidence alone to establish the -victim’s identity.1 Because there was not competent evidence of the victim’s identity, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Appellant was charged with felony battery, which involves a defendant’s commission of a misdemeanor battery under section 784.03(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), where the defendant has a prior battery conviction. See § 784.03(2) Fla. Stat. (2010). The information charged that Hol-borough did

actually and intentionally touch or strike Andrea Berube…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Hearn v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1951
  2. Snipes v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1999
  3. Raulerson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1978
  4. Schaffer v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
  5. Jacob v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Jones v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013
  2. Bryant v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013
  3. Roland Long v. State of FloridaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2016
  4. ASAD U. KHAN v. STATE OF FLORIDADistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2018
  5. Gregory Freeman v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2024

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API