MARCELINO MACEDO
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.
Probable cause existed to arrest the appellant based on the totality of circumstances, and although the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony regarding a watch's value, the error was harmless because the State provided competent evidence of other items stolen that met the statutory threshold for grand theft.
[1] A trial court's erroneous admission of hearsay evidence regarding the value of stolen property is harmless when the State presents sufficient competent evidence of other…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the totality of the circumstances provided probable cause to detain and arrest appellant”
Court's discussion of whether probable cause existed to support the arrest
Marcelino Macedo was charged with burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of property valued at $100 or more from a dwelling or enclosed curtilage, as …
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 Tampering With Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant’s conviction for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of property valued at $100 or more from a dwelling or enclosed curtilage, as well as tampering with physical evidence. While he contends that there was no probable cause to support his arrest, which requires suppression of the evidence seized, we disagree and conclude that the totality of the circumstances provided probable cause to detain and arrest appellant. Although the court erred in admitting the victim’s testimony of the value of a watch which was taken, as it was based upon an appraisal which was hearsay, see Harris v. State, 288 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), any error was harmless. The State provided sufficient competent evidence of the value of other items taken in the burglary, particularly a power washer, which met the statutory threshold. See, e.g., K.W. v. State, 983 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
2
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marcelino Macedo v. State, 288 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…he circumstances provided probable cause to detain and arrest appellant. Although the court erred in admitting the victim’s testimony of the value of a watch which was taken, as it was based upon an appraisal which was hearsay, see Harris v. State, 288 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), any error was harmless. The State provided sufficient competent evidence of the value of other items taken in the burglary, particularly a power washer, which met the statutory threshold. See, e.g., K.W. v. State, 983 So. 2d 7…
Authorities Cited
- K.W. v. State, 983 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Marcelino Macedo v. State, 288 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)