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.
9 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Robertsred1 sentence2019The statements possessed those guarantees of trustworthiness because they were made to a longtime friend in a personal setting and his descriptions matched police-gathered information. 4 o The Confrontation Clause In Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999), the Court discussed hearsay statements in the context of the Confrontation Clause. “[T]he veracity of hearsay statements is sufficiently dependable to allow the untested admission of such statements against an accused when (1) ‘the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception’ or (2) it contains ‘particularized guarantees of trust | 1 | 1 |
Lightbourne v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Larry instead argues that his due process right to a fair trial was violated. -3- In Lightbourne v. State, 644 So. 2d 54, 57 (Fla. 1994), the court observed that in Chambers the United States Supreme Court determined that due process concerns can overcome hearsay rules. | 1 | 1 |
Lucien D. Dort v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2016An exception exists when a statement is a statement against interest: “A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered td exculpate the accused is inadmissible, unless corroborating circumstances show the trustworthiness of the statement.” § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014). • “Essentially, the test for admissibility of statements against interest under section 90.804(2)(c) is whether (1) the declarant is unavailable, (2) the statements are relevant, (3) the statements tend to inculpate the declarant and exculpate the defendant, and (4) the statements are corrobora | 1 | 1 |
Voorhees v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Voorhees v. State, 699 So.2d 602, 613 (Fla.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Franqui v. Stategreen1 sentence1999The statement was offered into evidence as a declaration against penal interest, but as the Florida Supreme Court held in Franqui v. State, 699 So.2d 1312, 1319 (Fla. 1997), the declaration against penal interest exception in section 90.804(2)(c) is not a "firmly rooted" exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Harley Joe Seaboltgreen1 sentence1996Rivera v. State, 510 So.2d 340, 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see also United States v. Seabolt, 958 F.2d 231, 233 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 971 , 113 S.Ct. 1411 , 122 L.Ed.2d 782 (1993) (concluding that "a statement by one criminal to another criminal ... is more apt to be jailhouse braggadocio than a statement against his criminal interest"). | 1 | 1 |
Rivera v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Rivera v. State, 510 So.2d 340, 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see also United States v. Seabolt, 958 F.2d 231, 233 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 971 , 113 S.Ct. 1411 , 122 L.Ed.2d 782 (1993) (concluding that "a statement by one criminal to another criminal ... is more apt to be jailhouse braggadocio than a statement against his criminal interest"). | 1 | 1 |
Posters 'N' Things, Ltd. v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1996Rivera v. State, 510 So.2d 340, 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see also United States v. Seabolt, 958 F.2d 231, 233 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 971 , 113 S.Ct. 1411 , 122 L.Ed.2d 782 (1993) (concluding that "a statement by one criminal to another criminal ... is more apt to be jailhouse braggadocio than a statement against his criminal interest"). | 1 | 1 |
Seabolt v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996Rivera v. State, 510 So.2d 340, 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see also United States v. Seabolt, 958 F.2d 231, 233 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 971 , 113 S.Ct. 1411 , 122 L.Ed.2d 782 (1993) (concluding that "a statement by one criminal to another criminal ... is more apt to be jailhouse braggadocio than a statement against his criminal interest"). 1996Rivera v. State, 510 So.2d 340, 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see also United States v. Seabolt, 958 F.2d 231, 233 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 971 , 113 S.Ct. 1411 , 122 L.Ed.2d 782 (1993) (concluding that "a statement by one criminal to another criminal ... is more apt to be jailhouse braggadocio than a statement against his criminal interest"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lilly v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2019The statements possessed those guarantees of trustworthiness because they were made to a longtime friend in a personal setting and his descriptions matched police-gathered information. 4 o The Confrontation Clause In Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999), the Court discussed hearsay statements in the context of the Confrontation Clause. “[T]he veracity of hearsay statements is sufficiently dependable to allow the untested admission of such statements against an accused when (1) ‘the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception’ or (2) it contains ‘particularized guarantees of trust 2019The statements possessed those guarantees of trustworthiness because they were made to a longtime friend in a personal setting and his descriptions matched police-gathered information. 4 o The Confrontation Clause In Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999), the Court discussed hearsay statements in the context of the Confrontation Clause. “[T]he veracity of hearsay statements is sufficiently dependable to allow the untested admission of such statements against an accused when (1) ‘the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception’ or (2) it contains ‘particularized guarantees of trust | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2018Before trial, Payton filed a motion to admit the testimony of Randy Byous regarding an alleged confession to the murders by John Bicknas as a statement against penal interest pursuant to section 90.804(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and on due process grounds pursuant to Chambers v. Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). 2018Before trial, Payton filed a motion to admit the testimony of Randy Byous regarding an alleged confession to the murders by John Bicknas as a statement against penal interest pursuant to section 90.804(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and on due process grounds pursuant to Chambers v. Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rodriguez v. State
green
1 sentence2016After careful consideration, the trial court concluded that Ms. Logan’s testimony was not admissible as former testimony because it was taken as a discovery deposition pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(h) and not as a deposition to perpetuate testimony for use at trial in compliance with rule 3.190(i). 2 The court cor *389 rectly noted that the supreme court held in State v. Lopez, 974 So.2d 340 (Fla.2008), and Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493 (Fla.1992), that a deposition that does not meet the requirements of rule 3.190(i) is not admissible as substantive evidence in a cr | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2016After careful consideration, the trial court concluded that Ms. Logan’s testimony was not admissible as former testimony because it was taken as a discovery deposition pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(h) and not as a deposition to perpetuate testimony for use at trial in compliance with rule 3.190(i). 2 The court cor *389 rectly noted that the supreme court held in State v. Lopez, 974 So.2d 340 (Fla.2008), and Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493 (Fla.1992), that a deposition that does not meet the requirements of rule 3.190(i) is not admissible as substantive evidence in a cr | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Curtis v. State
green
1 sentence2008Curtis v. State, 876 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), is somewhat factually similar to Chambers . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.