Rodriguez v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Opinion of the Court
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
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).…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. GreenSupreme Court of Florida · 1995
- Anderson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1995
- Romero v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
- Everhart v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
- State v. BarnesSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
3Cited by1 opinion
- Williams v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997