GISELLE GUZMAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a partially inaudible recording, imposing discovery sanctions, controlling opening and closing statements, and denying a mistrial motion.
[1] Partial inaudibility or unintelligibility of a recording does not require exclusion if the audible portions are relevant, authenticated, and otherwise properly admissible…
[2] A trial court's determination of sanctions for discovery violations is committed to its discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGiselle Guzman was convicted in Collier County Circuit Court. The trial involved disputes over the admissibility of a partially inaudible recording, 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.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2024-2509 Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CF-002140
GISELLE GUZMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County. Elizabeth V. Krier, Judge.
October 23, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Martinez v. State, 761 So. 2d 1074, 1083 (Fla. 2000) ("[P]artial inaudibility or unintelligibility is not a ground for excluding a recording if the audible parts are relevant, authenticated, and otherwise properly admissible." (quoting Odom v. State, 403 So. 2d 936, 940 (Fla. 1981))); Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004) (“It is well settled that determining sanctions for discovery violations is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed upon appeal absent an abuse of the sound exercise of that discretion."); Blackwood
v. State, 777 So. 2d 399, 407 (Fla. 2000) (holding that an out-of-court statement only offered to show the effect that statement had on the listener was not hearsay); Merck v. State, 975 So. 2d 1054, 1061 (Fla. 2007) (“A trial court has discretion in controlling opening and closing statements, and its decisions will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion."); Salvatore v. State, 366 So. 2d 745, 750 (Fla. 1978) (holding that "a motion for declaration of a mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge" and should only be granted in cases of "absolute necessity").
TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.
Michael Ufferman, of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Bradley A. Muhs, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- HAM v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2004)
- Merck v. State, 975 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2007)
- Martinez v. State, 761 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2000)
- Salvatore v. State, 366 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1978)
- Odom v. State, 403 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1981)
- Lynford R. Blackwood v. State, 777 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2000)