RICHARD W. STONIER, APPELLANT,

v.

WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Eugene v. State, 53 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
  …the recipient of the victim’s emails, this case is distinguishable from the line of cases involving a victim’s statement to a third person expressing [*1110] fear of a defendant. See Johnson v. State, 969 So. 2d 938, 951 (Fla.2007); Thomas v. State, 993 So. 2d 105, 109-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). In such cases, the victim’s statement cannot have had an effect on the defendant who did not hear it, so it cannot be offered for a material, non-hearsay purpose. Appellant’s second point involves the statements he gave…
• Roop v. State, 228 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
  …o lacking in credibility as to be inherently incredible. Consequently, I cannot agree that there is no reasonable possibility that the admission of Yeater’s identification of Roop during the 911 call contributed to the verdict, see Thomas v. State, 993 So. 2d 105, 108-09 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (reversing for new trial because there was reasonable possibility that erroneous admission of hearsay, which State emphasized at closing argument, contributed to conviction); Elysee, 920 So. 2d at 1207-08 (holding that he…
• Walden v. State, 17 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
  …en it allowed the hearsay in over objection, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. “Admission of hearsay cannot be deemed harmless error if there is a reasonable possibility that it contributed to [the] conviction.” Thomas v. State, 993 So. 2d 105, 108-09 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (citing State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1138-39 (Fla.1986)). “As a general rule, a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be reversed, absent an abuse of discretion. However, a court’s discreti…

Authorities Cited

• Galindez v. State, 831 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
• Gundlah v. Moore, 831 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)