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 1997–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baugh v. Stategreen2 sentences2019A. No. In Baugh v. State, 961 So. 2d 198, 204 (Fla. 2007), a case also involving “the admission of pretrial statements as substantive evidence under the child victim hearsay exception[,]” the Florida Supreme Court repeated the established principle that “a prior inconsistent statement standing alone is insufficient as a matter of law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”5 (quoting State v. Green, 667 So. 2d 5 The State suggests that this rule is inapplicable because M.H.’s out-of-court statements were admitted under the child hearsay exception, section 90.803(23), and not as prior inconsi 2008As 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). | 2 | 3 |
White v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1997See also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355-56 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 742-43 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 ; Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 820-21 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3149-50 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). [3] The child victim hearsay exception is not a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. 1997See also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355-56 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 742-43 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 ; Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 820-21 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3149-50 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). [3] The child victim hearsay exception is not a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1 |
Perez v. Stategreen1 sentence1997Perez v. State, 536 So.2d 206, 209 (Fla.1988). [4] *466 In analyzing the reliability of the excited utterance it is important to consider the reasoning which allows its admission. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Townsend
green
2 sentences2003The court distinguished section 90.803(24) from section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1995), the child victim hearsay exception, that it had upheld against constitutional attack in State v. Townsend, 635 So.2d 949 (Fla.1994). 2003The court approved the admission of the inconsistent statements as substantive evidence *765 once they satisfied the strict reliability safeguards set out in section 90.803(23) and refined in such cases as State v. Townsend, 635 So.2d 949 (Fla.1994); Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992); and Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212 (Fla.1988). | 3 | 1998–2003 |
Fisel v. Wynns
green
1 sentence2019Although M.H.’s out-of-court statements, standing alone, are insufficient to prove Mendez’s guilt with respect to the molestation charge, statements admitted under the child victim hearsay exception may be used “as substantive evidence when other proper corroborating evidence is submitted.” Green, 667 So. 2d at 761 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Moore
green
1 sentence2019Although the rule set forth in Baugh originated from State v. Moore, 485 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1986), which only addressed the sufficiency of prior inconsistent statements, Moore’s holding has been expanded to address the sufficiency of evidence admitted under the child hearsay exception. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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 |
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 |
Pardo v. State
green
1 sentence2003The court approved the admission of the inconsistent statements as substantive evidence *765 once they satisfied the strict reliability safeguards set out in section 90.803(23) and refined in such cases as State v. Townsend, 635 So.2d 949 (Fla.1994); Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992); and Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212 (Fla.1988). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Glendening v. State
green
1 sentence2003The court approved the admission of the inconsistent statements as substantive evidence *765 once they satisfied the strict reliability safeguards set out in section 90.803(23) and refined in such cases as State v. Townsend, 635 So.2d 949 (Fla.1994); Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992); and Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212 (Fla.1988). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences1997The Florida Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this rule in State v. Green, 667 So.2d 756 (Fla.1995), a case in which the victim's prior inconsistent statements could have been admitted under the child victim hearsay exception, section 90.803, Florida Statutes (1989). 1997Still, the court held such evidence, standing alone, would have been insufficient to sustain the conviction. 667 So.2d at 760-761 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Andreu v. State
neutral
1 sentence1997The only case argued by the defendant on rehearing which does not deal with a child victim hearsay statement is Andreu v. State, 696 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Idaho v. Wright
green
2 sentences1997See also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355-56 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 742-43 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 ; Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 820-21 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3149-50 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). [3] The child victim hearsay exception is not a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. 1997See also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355-56 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 742-43 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 ; Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 820-21 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3149-50 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). [3] The child victim hearsay exception is not a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.