excited utterance hearsay exception (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

excited utterance hearsay exception in Florida

6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2019 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.

Followed or applied (9)

CaseFollowedCited
Taylor v. Stategreen
fladistctapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019See, e.g., Roop v. State, 228 So. 3d 633, 639-40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the excited utterance hearsay exception applied where the victim stated to a 911 operator that someone threw a metal pipe at his car and where there was no time to contrive or mispresent); Taylor v. State, 146 So. 3d 113, 115-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (holding that statements made “minutes” after an event by the ex-girlfriend whose armed ex-boyfriend, the appellant, walked in front of her car while she was driving, yelled insults, and threatened to kil

11
R.L.F. v. Stategreen
fladistctapp · 2017 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019See, e.g., Roop v. State, 228 So. 3d 633, 639-40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the excited utterance hearsay exception applied where the victim stated to a 911 operator that someone threw a metal pipe at his car and where there was no time to contrive or mispresent); Taylor v. State, 146 So. 3d 113, 115-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (holding that statements made “minutes” after an event by the ex-girlfriend whose armed ex-boyfriend, the appellant, walked in front of her car while she was driving, yelled insults, and threatened to kil

11
Puryear v. Stategreen
fla · 2002 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017Rather, we are saying that the trial court reached the right result for the right reason. -9- Puryear, 810 So. 2d at 904 (clarifying that the Power holding rested on the excited utterance hearsay exception).

11
Occhicone v. Stategreen
fla · 2000 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013See Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000) (“[Strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel’s decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct.”).

11
State v. Janogreen
fla · 1988 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008The essential elements of the excited utterance hearsay exception are "(1) there must be an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement; (2) the statement must have been made before there was time to contrive or misrepresent; and (3) the statement must be made while the person is under the stress of excitement caused by the event." State v. Jano, 524 So.2d 660, 661 (Fla.1988). "[T]here is no bright-line test for how much time can pass before a statement can no longer be considered an excited utterance." Strong v. State, 947 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing Jano, 524 So.2d at 66

2008The essential elements of the excited utterance hearsay exception are "(1) there must be an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement; (2) the statement must have been made before there was time to contrive or misrepresent; and (3) the statement must be made while the person is under the stress of excitement caused by the event." State v. Jano, 524 So.2d 660, 661 (Fla.1988). "[T]here is no bright-line test for how much time can pass before a statement can no longer be considered an excited utterance." Strong v. State, 947 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing Jano, 524 So.2d at 66

11
Strong v. Stategreen
fladistctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008The essential elements of the excited utterance hearsay exception are "(1) there must be an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement; (2) the statement must have been made before there was time to contrive or misrepresent; and (3) the statement must be made while the person is under the stress of excitement caused by the event." State v. Jano, 524 So.2d 660, 661 (Fla.1988). "[T]here is no bright-line test for how much time can pass before a statement can no longer be considered an excited utterance." Strong v. State, 947 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing Jano, 524 So.2d at 66

11
Hutchinson v. Statered
fla · 2004 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007See Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943, 951 (Fla.2004).

11
Torres-Arboledo v. Stategreen
fla · 1988 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
1 sentence

1994See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1991); Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 901 , 109 S.Ct. 250 , 102 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); Edmond v. State, 559 So.2d 85, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 570 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 1990).

11
Edmond v. Stategreen
fladistctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
1 sentence

1994See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1991); Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 901 , 109 S.Ct. 250 , 102 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); Edmond v. State, 559 So.2d 85, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 570 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 1990).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Ohio Power Co. v. Thomas green
scotus · 1988
1 sentence

1994See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1991); Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 901 , 109 S.Ct. 250 , 102 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); Edmond v. State, 559 So.2d 85, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 570 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 1990).

11994–1994
General Electric Co. v. United States green
scotus · 1988
1 sentence

1994See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1991); Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 901 , 109 S.Ct. 250 , 102 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); Edmond v. State, 559 So.2d 85, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 570 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 1990).

11994–1994
McKenzie v. McCormick green
scotus · 1988
1 sentence

1994See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1991); Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 901 , 109 S.Ct. 250 , 102 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); Edmond v. State, 559 So.2d 85, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 570 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 1990).

11994–1994

Statutes the citing opinions construe

FL § 90.803 (5)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 51 (2001–2025) OH 13 (2006–2025) WA 11 (1997–2023) PA 7 (2009–2023) FL 6 (1994–2019) TN 6 (1999–2021) NC 4 (1988–2024) CA 4 (1978–2015) WI 3 (1993–2021) MI 3 (1989–2026) AZ 2 (1993–2015) SC 2 (2005–2025) NJ 2 (2005–2018) LA 2 (1989–1995) NY 2 (1998–2010) KS 2 (2002–2020) IL 2 (2007–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check