Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aldrin Gomez-Martinez v. the State of Florida
Direct testimony is not the only type of evidence that serves to provide 9 a prima facie showing of authenticity: “Circumstantial evidence, either alone or in conjunction with direct evidence, is admissible for Rule 901 authentication purposes.” United States v. Hernandez-Garcia, 215 F.3d 1312 , *2 (1st Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision) (citing United States v. Carrasco, 887 F.2d 794, 804 (7th Cir. 1989)).1 “Evidence may be authenticated by appearance, content, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics taken in conjunction with the circumstances.” Lamb v.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
St. Claire v. State of Florida (Collier County)
See State v. Torres, 304 S. 3d 781, 784(Fla 4th DCA 2020) (holding that electronic communications generally can be “authenticated by appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics taken in conjunction with the circumstances”); Gilbert v. State, 324 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (admitting screenshots of Facebook Messenger messages after the victim testified that they accurately depicted what was on her Facebook Messenger); Symonette v. State, 100 So. 3d 180, 183 (Fla 4th DCA 2012) (finding that photographs of texts from the defendant’s cell phone…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MARQUIS VALENTINE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
In short, for the reasons expressed below, the error was harmless. • Harmless Error “[U]nder the harmless error test, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” Vilseis v. State, 117 So. 3d 867, 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Symonette v. State, 100 So. 3d 180, 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DYCK-O'NEAL, INC. v. RUDOLPH HERMAN
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Symonette v. State, 100 So. 3d 180, 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 13 Section 90.801(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2019), provides: “‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Regarding the 1099-A forms, although the circuit court may have been correct in overruling the appellant’s authentication objection to the 1099-A forms (because the borrower’s testimony that he received the 1099-A forms from the lender supported a …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MARQUIS VALENTINE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
In short, for the reasons expressed below, the error was harmless. • Issue Four: Harmless Error “[U]nder the harmless error test, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” Vilseis v. State, 117 So. 3d 867, 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Symonette v. State, 100 So. 3d 180, 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
KENDRIA WALKER v. TAYLA HARLEY-ANDERSON
The requirements of this section are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” “In determining whether the evidence submitted is sufficient for this purpose [of authentication], the trial judge must evaluate each instance on its own merits, there being no specific list of requirements for such a determination.” Justus v. State, 438 So. 2d 358, 365 (Fla. 1983); Symonette v. State, 100 So. 3d 180, 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
RODNEY CLARK v. STATE OF FLORIDA
“Evidence may be authenticated by appearance, content, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics taken in conjunction with the circumstances.” Symonette v. State, 100 So. 3d 180, 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Jackson v. State, 979 So. 2d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ARKHEEM J. LAMB v. STATE OF FLORIDA
In addition, the evidence may be authenticated either by using extrinsic evidence, or by showing that it meets the requirements for self-authentication.” Symonette v. State, 100 So. 3d 180, 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hassan Christopher Atkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia
App. 2015); State v. Francis, 455 S.W.3d 56, 69-73 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014); Symonette v. State, 100 So. 3d 180, 183 (Fla. Dist.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hassan Christopher Atkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia
App. 2015); State v. Francis, 455 S.W.3d 56, 69-73 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014); Symonette v. State, 100 So. 3d 180, 183 (Fla. Dist.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Antoine v. State
Given the nature of the evidence and the jury’s difficulty in reaching a verdict, we cannot say that “ ‘there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.’ ” Symonette v. State, 100 So.3d 180, 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Caldwell v. State
We do not find the error in the admission of the booking report information to be harmless. “ ‘[U]nder the harmless error test, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.’ ” Vilseis v. State, 117 So.3d 867, 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Symonette v. State, 100 So.3d 180, 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Francis
See State v. Thompson, 777 N.W.2d 617, 622-26 (N.D.2010) (trial court admitted messages as “declarations against interest,” appellate court analyzed law of other jurisdictions regarding authentication of electronic messages and found sufficient evidence of authorship by defendant given the circumstances and victim’s testimony that messages came from the defendant’s phone number and included her distinctive signature); State v. Winder, 189 P.3d 580 (Kan.App.2008) (text messages admissible as a party admission and finding messages were properly authenticated when witness testified the in…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vilsaint v. State
As we noted in Symonette v. State, 100 So.3d 180, 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), there is no specific list of requirements for authentication, and each case must be determined on its own merits.
discussed
Cited "see"
Crawford v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pasco County)
See Symonette v. State, 100 So. 3d 180, 183-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (text messages authenticated where witness “identified the text messages between her and the defendant, and discussed the context of the messages”); United States v. Arnold, 696 F. App’x 903, 907 (10th Cir. 2017) (text messages authenticated where witness “testified that he received the original text messages from” defendant and “also testified as to the general time frame and the order of events that occurred when he received particular messages and groups of messages”); United States v. Barnes, 803 F.3d 209, 217…
discussed
Cited "see"
Gayle v. State
See Symonette v. State, 100 So.3d 180, 183-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding that photographs of a phone were “genuinely what the State claims— pictures,” without suggesting that pictures were themselves a statement); see also A.J.M. v. State, 182 So.3d 895, 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (after determining that the words on a sign outside a restaurant amounted to a non-hearsay verbal act, this Court affirmed the admission of a photograph of the sign without consideration of whether the photograph itself would be hearsay).
discussed
Cited "see"
Vilseis v. State
See Blanton v. State, 978 So.2d 149, 156 (Fla.2008) (“ ‘[Violations of the Confrontation Clause, if preserved for appellate review, are subject to harmless error review ....’”) (quoting United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004)). “[U]nder the harmless error test, the State must ‘prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.’” Symonette v. State, 100 So.3d 180, 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting State v. D…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
STATE OF FLORIDA v. JORGE TORRES
“In determining whether the evidence submitted is sufficient for this purpose, the trial judge must evaluate each instance on its own merits, there being no specific list of requirements for such a determination.” Justus v. State, 438 So. 2d 358, 365 (Fla. 1983); see also Symonette v. State, 100 So. 3d 180, 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida
v.
Willie LEE, Robert Macialek, and Jonathan McLeod, a/k/a Jonathon G. McLeod
v.
Willie LEE, Robert Macialek, and Jonathan McLeod, a/k/a Jonathon G. McLeod
No. 2D11-5616.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct 24, 2012.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin-Scho-maker, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant., James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Matthew D. Bernstein, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellees.
Crenshaw, Silberman, Villanti.
Published
VILLANTI, Judge.
The State appeals the dismissal of certain criminal charges filed against Willie Lee, Robert Macialek, and Jonathan McLeod. Each of these defendants had a charge filed against them for possession of controlled substances under section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2011), and each of these defendants sought dismissal of those charges based on the alleged facial unconstitutionality of section 893.13.
The trial court dismissed the charges at issue based on its finding that section 893.13 was unconstitutional pursuant to Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011), rev’d, 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.2012). Because the Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 893.13 in State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012), we reverse the order of dismissal and remand with instructions that the trial court reinstate the charges as to each of these defendants.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
SILBERMAN, C.J., and CRENSHAW, J., Concur.