ARIUS JULIAN LLANOS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reversed Arius Julian Llanos's convictions for armed kidnapping and aggravated battery because the trial court improperly admitted hearsay statements from a medical report that were not reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment.
The trial court erred in admitting the statements because there was no showing that the declarant made them for purposes of diagnosis or treatment, and the statements were not reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment of the victim's injuries. The error was not harmless because the doctor's reference to the police report gave significant extra weight to the victim's testimony.
[1] Statements in a medical report are inadmissible hearsay if they are not made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment and are not reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or tr…
[2] A medical report containing a physician's statement that the patient has had domestic abuse with a boyfriend, based on reading a police report, is inadmissible hearsay if…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“For a statement to be admissible under this exception, there must be a showing that the declarant made the statement for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment and knew that it was being made for this purpose.”
Establishes the required elements for admissibility under the medical diagnosis hearsay exception
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe victim's physician prepared a medical report containing statements that the patient had experienced domestic abuse with a boyfriend and that the d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Hearsay cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
We reverse Appellant’s convictions and sentences for armed kidnapping and aggravated battery. The trial court erred in admitting a medical report containing inadmissible hearsay.
At trial, Appellant moved in limine to exclude the medical record prepared by the victim’s physician. In it, the doctor stated, “[Patient] has had domestic abuse with a boyfriend ...” and “I read the police report and this has also been documented relative to domestic abuse.”
The trial court admitted the “medical” statements under section 90.803(4), Florida Statutes, which provides for the admission of:
Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment by a person seeking the diagnosis or treatment, or made by an individual who has knowledge of the facts and is legally responsible for the person who is unable to communicate the facts, which statements describe medical history, past or present symptoms, pains, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
For a statement to be admissible under this exception, there must be a showing that the declarant made the statement for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment and knew that it was being made for this purpose. Begley v. State, 483 So. 2d 70, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Here, there is no showing that the statements were made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment. The offending hearsay, clearly, is not reasonably pertinent to the diagnosis or treatment of the victim’s injuries. See Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, the hearsay should not have been admitted.
We cannot say that the error constitutes harmless error. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 540 (Fla.1999). In Begley, the error was deemed harmless, as substantially the same matters had been presented to the jury through the testimony of other witnesses. See Begley, 483 So. 2d at 74. Here, the doctor’s reference to the police report gave significant extra weight to the victim’s testimony. See Schroeder v. State, 715 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Lazarowicz v. State, 561 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings.
KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999)
- Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1988)
- Begley v. State, 483 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Lazarowicz v. State, 561 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Raben v. State, 715 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)