LEVY WATSON, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• F.T. v. State, 146 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
  …istinction between the definition of value for retail theft and value for non-retail theft cases guides our conclusion that the testimony in this case was not hearsay. This conclusion is consistent with our sister court’s holding in Watson v. State, 415 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)5 (holding loss prevention officer was properly permitted to testify to her contemporaneous observation of the sale price stated on the price tags affixed to the stolen items of retail merchandise). Affirmed. . The Appellant thu…
• Boardwalk & Baseball, Inc. v. City Ctr. Bonds, LLC, 161 So. 3d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
  …third party pursuant to the circuit court’s order. Petitioners did not respond to this assertion in their reply. We therefore dismiss the portion of the petition dealing with the discovery issue as moot. See Cicenia v. Mitey Mite Race Tracks, Inc., 415 So. 2d 128, 129-30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (holding that where respondents were already in possession of records which were subject of petition for writ of certiorari, action was moot); see also Martineau v. Banco Popular N. Am., 77 So. 3d 925, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 20…
• Leon v. Moore, 734 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
  …tag that was affixed to an item of merchandise on the day appellant was accused of stealing the merchandise. In our view this testimony did not constitute hearsay as contemplated by the provisions of the Florida Evidence Code.... ” Watson v. State, 415 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See generally Scott v. State, 519 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The fact that the First District has recently come to a different conclusion on similar facts, see Lukaj v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D621, 729 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st…