Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bank of New York v. Andrew Callowaygreen1 sentence2015“The rationale behind the business records exception is that such documents have a high degree of reliability because businesses have incentives to keep accurate records.” See Bank of New York v. Calloway, 157 So.3d 1064, 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Timberlake Constr. | 1 | 1 |
Love v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Love v. State, 971 So.2d 280, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Ibar v. Stategreen1 sentence2013“A spontaneous statement must be made at the time of, or immediately following, the declarant’s observation of the event or condition described ... the statement must be made without the declarant first engaging in reflective thought.” Ibar v. State, 938 So.2d 451, 467 (Fla.2006) (internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Baugh v. Stategreen1 sentence2008As in Baugh v. State , the present case "involves the admission of pretrial statements as substantive evidence under the child victim hearsay exception in section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2001), after the child recanted the pretrial statements during her in-trial testimony." 961 So.2d 198, 202 (Fla.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Dutilly v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERVICESgreen1 sentence2006Dutilly v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 450 So.2d 1195, 1196-97 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Commitment of Cartwrightgreen1 sentence2005In re Commitment of Burton, 884 So.2d 1112, 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); In re Commitment of Cartwright, 870 So.2d 152, 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); but see Jenkins v. State, 803 So.2d 783, 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ("Obviously [section 394.9155(5)] must be construed in light of the Fourteenth Amendment right of confrontation.") *268 Here, the trial court properly found that the statements made by S.W. to Sharon Moore were excited utterances and, as such, were hearsay exceptions under Florida Statute Section 90.803(2). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Commitment of Burtongreen1 sentence2005In re Commitment of Burton, 884 So.2d 1112, 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); In re Commitment of Cartwright, 870 So.2d 152, 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); but see Jenkins v. State, 803 So.2d 783, 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ("Obviously [section 394.9155(5)] must be construed in light of the Fourteenth Amendment right of confrontation.") *268 Here, the trial court properly found that the statements made by S.W. to Sharon Moore were excited utterances and, as such, were hearsay exceptions under Florida Statute Section 90.803(2). | 1 | 1 |
Thee v. Manor Pines Convalescent Center, Inc.green1 sentence2001See Thee v. Manor Pines Convalescent Ctr., Inc., 235 So.2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). | 1 | 1 |
Avila v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See id. § 90.803(3)(a)2; Avila v. State, 545 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also United States v. Cerone, 452 F.2d 274, 288 (7th Cir.1971); United States v. Schennault, 429 F.2d 852, 855 (7th Cir.1970). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Harry Schennaultgreen1 sentence1998See id. § 90.803(3)(a)2; Avila v. State, 545 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also United States v. Cerone, 452 F.2d 274, 288 (7th Cir.1971); United States v. Schennault, 429 F.2d 852, 855 (7th Cir.1970). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John Philip Cerone, Sr.green1 sentence1998See id. § 90.803(3)(a)2; Avila v. State, 545 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also United States v. Cerone, 452 F.2d 274, 288 (7th Cir.1971); United States v. Schennault, 429 F.2d 852, 855 (7th Cir.1970). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence1990We find that the evidence satisfied the hearsay exception of section 90.803(7) of the Florida Statutes (1981), which expressly provides for the admissibility as substantive evidence of assertions implied from the absence of an entry in the records of a regularly conducted activity. [4] See Williams v. State, 406 So.2d 86, 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (probation violation proved from absence of defendant's regular monthly reports). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jenkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2005In re Commitment of Burton, 884 So.2d 1112, 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); In re Commitment of Cartwright, 870 So.2d 152, 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); but see Jenkins v. State, 803 So.2d 783, 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ("Obviously [section 394.9155(5)] must be construed in light of the Fourteenth Amendment right of confrontation.") *268 Here, the trial court properly found that the statements made by S.W. to Sharon Moore were excited utterances and, as such, were hearsay exceptions under Florida Statute Section 90.803(2). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dhrs v. Mb
green
2 sentences2002In M.B., the supreme court agreed with Professor Ehrhardt's conclusion that a statement admitted under *936 a section 90.803 hearsay exception is "surrounded by circumstantial guarantees of reliability" to allow use of the statements as substantive evidence. 701 So.2d at 1161 (quoting CHARLES W. 1997Like the Supreme Court of Florida, we find persuasive Professor Ehrhardt's conclusion that "although a prior statement which is admitted pursuant to section 90.801(2) is not sufficient by itself to support a conviction, the rationale should not be extended to statements admitted under a section 90.803 hearsay exception." In our view, even a child victim hearsay statement is sufficient, on its own, to sustain a conviction if the statement is determined to carry the "sufficient safeguards of reliability" specifically required by section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes. [6] Although Anderson was dec | 2 | 1997–2002 |
Foster v. State
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Beber v. State
green
1 sentence2007Additionally, the Second District certified the original question above to this Court based on a perceived "need for clarification of some of these issues." Id. [2] ANALYSIS The instant case is similar to Beber v. State, 887 So.2d 1248 (Fla.2004), because like Beber this case involves the admission of pretrial statements as substantive evidence under the child victim hearsay exception in section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2001), after the child recanted the pretrial statements during her in-trial testimony. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Baugh v. State
green
1 sentence2007Additionally, the Second District certified the original question above to this Court based on a perceived "need for clarification of some of these issues." Id. [2] ANALYSIS The instant case is similar to Beber v. State, 887 So.2d 1248 (Fla.2004), because like Beber this case involves the admission of pretrial statements as substantive evidence under the child victim hearsay exception in section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2001), after the child recanted the pretrial statements during her in-trial testimony. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Conner v. State
green
1 sentence2003In so doing, the defense relied on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950 (Fla.1999). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Alexander v. State
green
1 sentence2000Other cases cited by appellant, Alexander v. State, 627 So.2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) and Stiles v. State, 672 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), pertain to the hearsay exceptions of section 90.803(1)(spontaneous statement) and (2)(excited utterance), Florida Statutes (1999), as justification for admitting a defendant's exculpatory statements. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Stiles v. State
green
1 sentence2000Other cases cited by appellant, Alexander v. State, 627 So.2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) and Stiles v. State, 672 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), pertain to the hearsay exceptions of section 90.803(1)(spontaneous statement) and (2)(excited utterance), Florida Statutes (1999), as justification for admitting a defendant's exculpatory statements. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Townsend
green
1 sentence1998It was emphasized in State v. Townsend, 635 So.2d 949 (Fla.1994), that the reliability safeguards in the statute essentially assure its constitutionality. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Dupree v. State
neutral
1 sentence1995Dupree v. State, 639 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.