Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exception

30 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Perez v. State
  536 So. 2d 206· Fla.· 1988-12-01 ·cited 119×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 90.803(23), a hearsay exception allowing out-of-court statements of child sexual abuse victims, rejecting the defendant's argument that the statute violated the Confrontation Clause. The court held that the statute
• United States v. Ordonez
  737 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the Ninth Circuit's refusal to adopt the rule of per se admissibility for statements falling within firmly rooted hearsay exceptions is incorrect and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.
• United States v. Hoyle Lamont Peacock
  654 F.2d 339· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Vera Peacock of one arson, and Harvey and Hoyle Peacock of the murder of Ruth Elaine Peacock. The court also reversed the forfeiture order.
• Brooks v. State
  787 So. 2d 765· Fla.· 2001-04-05 ·cited 79×
  Lamar Brooks was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the stabbing deaths of Rachel Carlson and her three-month-old daughter. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court's admission of extensi
• Maugeri v. State
  460 So. 2d 975· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-12-18 ·cited 36×
  Maugeri was convicted of first-degree murder and burglary. On appeal, the court upheld the admissibility of hearsay testimony from the victim's girlfriend that the victim told her he had stolen cocaine (not cash) from Maugeri's airplane, finding it admissible as a statement again
• State v. Ochoa
  576 So. 2d 854· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-03-19 ·cited 26×
  The State appeals the trial court's dismissal of sexual battery charges against Ivan Ochoa. The trial court excluded the minor victims' statements to a physician as inadmissible hearsay and ruled the State failed to establish corpus delicti. The appellate court reverses, holding
• Bryant Williams v. State
  714 So. 2d 462· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-12-31 ·cited 23×
  Bryant Williams appeals his conviction for burglary with assault, aggravated stalking, and simple battery. The court affirms his convictions on most counts based on excited utterance hearsay testimony, distinguishing prior case law requiring independent corroborating evidence, bu
• Martinez v. Sullivan
  881 F.2d 921· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 18×
  The prosecution's failure to utilize the Uniform Act to secure an out-of-state witness, coupled with the witness's history of unreliability, meant the witness was not legally "unavailable" and their prior testimony should not have been admitted, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. George
  960 F.2d 97· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 15×
  The admission of hearsay statements made by a child victim to her examining physician and a tribal investigator did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and the denial of a new trial based on the victim's recantation was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Gomez-Lemos
  939 F.2d 326· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that under prior Sixth Circuit precedent, grand jury testimony of unavailable witnesses may be admissible if it possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, even without a finding of waiver by the defendant.
• Smith v. State
  746 So. 2d 1162· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-12-01 ·cited 9×
  Patrick Smith was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery in connection with a robbery that resulted in a death. Smith appealed, challenging the trial court's admission of his codefendant Tipton's pretrial statement. The appellate court found the admission violated bot
• Elton John Myatt v. Hannigan
  910 F.2d 680· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Kansas' child hearsay statute, Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-460(dd), is constitutional on its face and its application in this case did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• United States v. Sihadej Chindawongse
  771 F.2d 840· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that tape-recorded co-conspirator statements admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) do not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• Lark O'Sean Dupree v. State
  639 So. 2d 125· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-06-29 ·cited 7×
  Dupree was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of a two-year-old child. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court improperly admitted hearsay statements under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes, by allowing testimony about out-of-court stat
• United States v. Bonnet
  933 F.2d 1471· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 6×
  The admission of hearsay statements from child victims did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the children testified and were subject to cross-examination, even if their memory was imperfect.
• Webb v. Lane
  922 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 6×
  The admission of the victim's statements, identified as 'Little Gage,' did not violate the Confrontation Clause because they qualified as excited utterances and a dying declaration, which are firmly rooted hearsay exceptions.
• Augustus Marshall v. Young
  833 F.2d 709· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that trial counsel's failure to investigate bullet caliber was not ineffective assistance, and the admission of hearsay testimony did not violate the confrontation clause.
• United States v. Romeo Trinidad Flores, Jr.
  985 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a codefendant's grand jury testimony, which implicated the defendant, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because the testimony lacked particularized guarantees of trustworthiness and the district court improperly considered corro
• Townsend v. State
  613 So. 2d 534· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-01-29 ·cited 4×
  Jack Timothy Townsend appeals his sexual battery conviction, arguing that hearsay statements from a two-year-old alleged victim should not have been admitted at trial. The appellate court reverses and remands, holding that incompetency to testify does not satisfy the statutory re
• Dana v. Dep't OF Corr.
  958 F.2d 237· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a child victim's out-of-court statements through adult witnesses did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements were either within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or possessed particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
• Martinez v. McCAUGHTRY
  951 F.2d 130· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of the co-defendant's statements did not violate the appellant's confrontation clause rights because the statements were not offered for their truth (non-hearsay) or, alternatively, were admissible under the excited utterance exception.
• Ring v. Erickson
  983 F.2d 818· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-09 ·cited 1×
  The admission of two videotaped statements from a child victim, one under a medical diagnosis exception and the other under a special child hearsay exception, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the statements lacked sufficient indicia of relia
• In & for Sussex Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2005-07-19
  The court held that certain out-of-court statements made by the victim were admissible as hearsay, finding them to be either non-testimonial under Crawford v. Washington or falling within firmly rooted hearsay exceptions. Specifically, statements made for medical diagnosis and tr
• State v. Freddy Frazier
  753 So. 2d 644· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-03-03
  The court held that statements made to a physician identifying an assailant are not admissible under the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment, but statements made during a 911 call may be admissible as excited utterances despite the Confrontati
• United States v. Farhad Bakhtiar and Anthony McDonald
  994 F.2d 970· 2d Cir.· 1993-05-17
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the loss of certain evidence did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial, and the admission of taped statements was proper or harmless error.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Eurie Joseph
  964 F.2d 1380· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-01
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting the victim's second statement by relying on corroborating evidence, but the error was harmless due to substantial overlap with a prior admissible statement and other corroborating evidence.