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.
6 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Richardson v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Richardson v. State, 247 So.2d 296, 300 (Fla.1971) (“A time-honored and universally recognized exception to the hearsay rule is the so-called ‘former testimony5 exceptions.”). 25 By qualifying as former testimony under section 90.804(2)(a), Danford’s and Ward’s testimony is not vulnerable to a Confrontation Clause challenge. | 1 | 1 |
Theodore Trigones v. Lynn Bissonnette, Superintendent, North Central Correctional Institutiongreen1 sentence2010Cf. Trigones v. Bissonnette, 296 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.2002) (“[E]vidence admissible under Rule 804(b)(1) is, ‘by definition, not vulnerable to a challenge based upon the Confrontation Clause.’ ”) (quoting United States v. McKeeve, 131 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir.1997)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. McKeevegreen1 sentence2010Cf. Trigones v. Bissonnette, 296 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.2002) (“[E]vidence admissible under Rule 804(b)(1) is, ‘by definition, not vulnerable to a challenge based upon the Confrontation Clause.’ ”) (quoting United States v. McKeeve, 131 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir.1997)). | 1 | 1 |
Penalver v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See State v. Hill, 504 So.2d 407, 410-11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); cf. Penalver v. State, 926 So.2d 1118, 1135 (Fla.2006) (discussing requirements for admission of prior adversarial hearing testimony). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen1 sentence2008See State v. Hill, 504 So.2d 407, 410-11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); cf. Penalver v. State, 926 So.2d 1118, 1135 (Fla.2006) (discussing requirements for admission of prior adversarial hearing testimony). | 1 | 1 |
Hitchcock v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Hitchcock, 578 So.2d at 690-91 ; Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 804.1 (1995 ed.) ("If the declarant is available to testify during the trial, evidence of a hearsay statement is not admissible under any of the section 90.804 exceptions even though all the other statutory requirements are met"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
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 |
Essex v. State
green
1 sentence2010This case falls between Essex v. State, 958 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) and McClain v. State, 411 So.2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), two cases that considered the meaning of the “unavailability of a witness” within the context of the section 90.804(2)(a) former testimony exception to the rule against hearsay. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
McClain v. State
green
1 sentence2010This case falls between Essex v. State, 958 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) and McClain v. State, 411 So.2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), two cases that considered the meaning of the “unavailability of a witness” within the context of the section 90.804(2)(a) former testimony exception to the rule against hearsay. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. James
green
1 sentence1990Treating these criminal discovery depositions as former testimony within the meaning of Section 90.804(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989) would not square with the Court’s decision in State v James, 402 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1981), upholding reversal of a conviction because a deposition taken under Fla. R. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.