SANTIAGO SOLIVAN
v.
THE 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's admission of BOLO (Be On The Lookout) contents was harmless error where the victim provided the same testimony regarding the information contained in the BOLO during trial.
[1] The contents of a BOLO (Be On The Lookout) alert are generally inadmissible, but admission of such contents is harmless error when the victim testifies to the same inform…
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“'[T]he contents of a BOLO are generally inadmissible . . . . However, when as here, the victim testifies to the same information during the trial, courts have often considered the admission of the BOLO's contents cumulative in nature, and, therefore, harmless.'”
From English v. State, citing the applicable legal standard for BOLO admissibility
Santiago Solivan was convicted in Miami-Dade County. The trial court admitted contents of a BOLO, which are generally inadmissible, but the victim tes…
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 Cumulative Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed October 2, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0665 Lower Tribunal No. F20-10093
________________
Santiago Solivan,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lody Jean, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jennifer Thornton, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986) (explaining harmless error test); English v. State, 43 So. 3d 871, 872 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“’[T]he contents of a BOLO are generally inadmissible . . . .’ However, when as here, the victim testifies to the same information during the trial, courts have often considered the admission of the BOLO’s contents cumulative in nature, and, therefore, harmless.”) (quoting in part Tillman v. State, 964 So. 2d 785, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)); see also Andres v. State, 254 So. 3d 283, 300 (Fla. 2018) (“While the State cannot comment on the defendant’s failure to present evidence, there is no impropriety in observing, in response to arguments made by the defense, that the defense’s theory is not supported by actual evidence.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Onterrious Tillman v. State, 964 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Andres v. State, 254 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2018)
- English v. State, 43 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)