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 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See, 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 | 1 | 1 |
R.L.F. v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See, 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 | 1 | 1 |
Puryear v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Rather, 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). | 1 | 1 |
Occhicone v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See 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.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Janogreen2 sentences2008The 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 | 1 | 1 |
Strong v. Stategreen1 sentence2008The 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 | 1 | 1 |
Hutchinson v. Statered1 sentence2007See Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943, 951 (Fla.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Torres-Arboledo v. Stategreen1 sentence1994See § 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). | 1 | 1 |
Edmond v. Stategreen1 sentence1994See § 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). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ohio Power Co. v. Thomas
green
1 sentence1994See § 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). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
General Electric Co. v. United States
green
1 sentence1994See § 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). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
McKenzie v. McCormick
green
1 sentence1994See § 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). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.