FIMBER FREDERICK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Excited Utterance Exception To Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Fimber Frederick appeals the judgment and sentence imposed upon him after he was convicted by a jury of throwing a deadly missile at an occupied vehicle. The primary issue raised by Mr. Frederick is whether the trial court erred in allowing hearsay testimony under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.- See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). We affirm.
Whether the necessary state of mind is present for a court to admit a statement as an excited utterance is a preliminary fact to be determined by the trial court and the standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Elysee v. State, 920 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); K.V. v. State, 832 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Cotton v. State, 763 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). After careful review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
PALMER, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 146 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence § 297 at 856 (1984 3d ed.))). Whether the declarant made an excited utterance is a preliminary question of fact for the trial court, and the court’s ruling is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Frederick v. State, 923 So. 2d 1288, 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). That discretion is limited, however, by the rules of evidence and the doctrine of stare decisis, and a court abuses its discretion when it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessme…
Authorities Cited
- Cotton v. State, 763 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- K.V. v. State, 832 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Elysee v. State, 920 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)