Spontaneous Statement Exception

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

• Deparvine v. State
  995 So. 2d 351· Fla.· 2008-09-29 ·cited 131×
  William James Deparvine appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and armed carjacking, as well as his death sentence, in connection with the murders of Richard and Karla Van Dusen. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and the death sentence, fi
• Hutchinson v. State
  882 So. 2d 943· Fla.· 2004-07-01 ·cited 119×
  Jeffrey Hutchinson was convicted of four first-degree murders (his live-in girlfriend and her three children ages 4-9) and sentenced to death for three of the murders. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentences, rejecting all ten appellate claims and f
• Pacifico v. State
  642 So. 2d 1178· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-09-29 ·cited 89×
  Joseph Pacifico was convicted of sexual battery after a jury trial. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial, though the court also addressed evide
• Cotton v. State
  763 So. 2d 437· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-06-09 ·cited 45×
  A defendant's out-of-court exculpatory statement offered for the truth of its content is inadmissible hearsay unless it falls within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule or qualifies under fairness principles such as the rule of completeness. The trial court did not abuse i
• Preston v. State
  470 So. 2d 836· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-06-12 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting prejudicial hearsay testimony, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Lyles v. State
  412 So. 2d 458· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-04-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the victim's out-of-court statements to a police sergeant were inadmissible hearsay because the victim did not testify at trial and the statements were not made under circumstances qualifying for the spontaneous statement or excited utterance exceptions.
• Destine Decile v. State
  516 So. 2d 1139· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-12-23 ·cited 22×
  Destine Decile was convicted of cocaine sales after an undercover narcotics operation. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's admission of an officer's testimony about statements made by a confidential informant during the drug transaction, arguing the statements were inadmis
• J.M. v. State
  665 So. 2d 1135· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-01-05 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting the victim's statement under the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule because the statement was made after the declarant had time to reflect.
• Smelley v. State
  500 So. 2d 318· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-12-30 ·cited 17×
  Terry Edward Smelley was convicted of robbery with a weapon following a jury trial. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his motion for mistrial, the admission of prior consistent statements, and the scoring of victim injury and prior escape convictions in his guidelines senten
• State v. Skolar
  692 So. 2d 309· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-05-02 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a pretrial order admitting hearsay evidence in a murder case, holding that an anonymous 911 call made hours before the murder did not qualify as an excited utterance or spontaneous statement, and that the defendant's mother's deposition testimon
• McGAULEY v. State
  638 So. 2d 973· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-06-01 ·cited 12×
  Alvin McGauley appealed his conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony from a police officer about defendant's wife's statement identifying him as having fled through a back window. The Florida Distric
• Merritt v. Crosby
  893 So. 2d 598· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-01-05 ·cited 9×
  The circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying habeas corpus relief to a parolee whose parole was revoked based solely on hearsay evidence.
• Mitchell v. State
  965 So. 2d 246· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-09-12 ·cited 8×
  Milton Mack Mitchell, Sr. was convicted of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon for shooting Henry Wilson. On appeal, Mitchell challenged the exclusion of several hearsay statements and expert testimony, as well as the denial of a self-defense jury
• Silveira-Hernandez v. State
  495 So. 2d 914· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-10-14 ·cited 8×
  Silveira-Hernandez appealed his convictions for aggravated battery, aggravated assault, battery, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court affirmed, finding that while an investigating officer's hearsay testimony about the victim's account was erroneously admitted, the erro
• Bartee v. State
  922 So. 2d 1065· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-03-17 ·cited 7×
  Charles Bartee was convicted of burglary, false imprisonment, and battery following an altercation with his ex-girlfriend. The Florida appellate court reversed the burglary conviction because the trial court violated Bartee's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by admitting test
• Roop v. State
  228 So. 3d 633· Fla. 2d DCA· 2017-10-04 ·cited 6×
  Devin Roop appeals his convictions for throwing a deadly missile at an occupied vehicle and criminal mischief. The key issue is whether the trial court properly admitted a 911 recording in which the victim identified Roop as the perpetrator under the excited utterance exception t
• Antoine Williams v. State
  947 So. 2d 694· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-02-07 ·cited 6×
  In this rehearing motion case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal vacated Antoine Williams's conviction for aggravated fleeing and eluding, attempted burglary, and leaving the scene of accidents, finding that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause righ
• Kirt Edwards v. State
  763 So. 2d 549· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-08-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a bystander's statement relating to the defendant's prior intoxication was admissible as an excited utterance because it related to the startling event of the accident. The court also held that the defendant was entitled to resentencing due to the unconstituti
• Mordenti v. State
  982 So. 2d 710· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-02-22 ·cited 4×
  The court reversed Michael Mordenti's murder conviction because the trial court erred in excluding exculpatory hearsay statements from the victim's husband (a deceased alleged coconspirator) that, if believed, would exonerate Mordenti. The statements indicated the husband believe
• Vantavia B. Jackson-Johnson v. State
  188 So. 3d 133· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-04-06 ·cited 3×
  A former corrections deputy was convicted of official misconduct, culpable negligence, and accessory after the fact based in part on recordings of a third inmate's spontaneous statements about an incident where an inmate was allowed to attack another inmate. The appellate court a
• M.J. v. State
  994 So. 2d 485· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-11-12 ·cited 2×
  M.J., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for resisting an officer without violence after fleeing from an off-duty police officer at a mall. The appellate court affirmed, holding that hearsay statements from a loss prevention security officer describing suspected shoplifting w
• Asberry v. State
  568 So. 2d 86· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-10-10 ·cited 2×
  Curtis Lee Asberry was convicted of robbery with a weapon and grand theft based partly on hearsay testimony from a non-testifying witness identifying him as the perpetrator. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the admission of the victim's and officer's
• Ruff v. State
  115 So. 3d 1023· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-05-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to give a limiting instruction for impeachment testimony, the error was harmless because the testimony was admissible as a spontaneous statement exception to hearsay.
• Hinck v. State
  260 So. 3d 325· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-12-05
  A defendant's statement qualifies as an excited utterance admissible under Florida Statute § 90.803(2) when it satisfies the three-prong test: the event is startling enough to cause nervous excitement, the statement is made before there is time to contrive or misrepresent, and th
• Bret Edmund Jano v. State
  510 So. 2d 615· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-06-24
  Bret Jano was convicted of sexually battering his 2½-year-old daughter based primarily on hearsay statements admitted under the spontaneous statement and excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, f