D.F., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Excited Utterance Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting testimony under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). We disagree and affirm.
Whether or not the declarant has the necessary state of mind for his or her statement to constitute an excited utterance is a preliminary question of fact for the court to decide. See Perry v. State, 675 So. 2d 976, 979 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 684 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1996). Furthermore, absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, a trial court’s evidentiary ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. See Maggard v. State, 399 So. 2d 973, 975 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1059, 102 S.Ct. 610, 70 L.Ed.2d 598 (1981). We find that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the witness’s testimony under the excited utterance hearsay exception.
Affirmed.
WARNER, STEVENSON, JJ., and CONNER, BURTON C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bush v. State, 809 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…of differing interpretations, and its rulings in this regard will not be disturbed unless discretion has been abused. See Maggard v. State, 399 So. 2d 973, 975 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1059, 102 S.Ct. 610, 70 L.Ed.2d 598 (1981); D.F. v. State, 730 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). A lay witness may describe a person’s physical appearance using opinions [*120] that do not require special skill, so long as the opinions are based upon observations of the witness. Fino v. Nodine, 646 So. 2d 746, 749 (Fla. 4th…
Authorities Cited
- Maggard v. State, 399 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1981)
- Valdes v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 454 U.S. 1059 (U.S. 1981)
- Christensen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 454 U.S. 1059 (U.S. 1981)
- Willona Perry v. State, 675 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)