Fulton v. State, 132 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
Fulton v. State, 132 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the standard of review for admissibility of evidence is abuse of discretion, limited by the rules of evidence. ... thus, whether evidence is admissible ... under an exception to the hearsay rule is a question of law ... subject to the de novo standard of review.”
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: J.T.J., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2022-11-02) · Strongest negative: STEVEN CANNON v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2021-04-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
examined Limited STEVEN CANNON v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the standard of review for admissibility of evidence is abuse of discretion, limited by the rules of evidence. ... thus, whether evidence is admissible ... under an exception to the hearsay rule is a question of law ... subject to the de novo standard of review.
examined Limited Vantavia B. Jackson-Johnson v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the standard of review for admissibility of evidence is abuse of discretion, limited by the rules of evidence.... thus, whether evidence is admissible ... under an exception to the hearsay rule is a question of law ... subject to the de novo standard of review.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J.T.J., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
However, “whether evidence is admissible in evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is a question of law . . . [subject to] the de novo standard of review.” Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Powell v. State, 99 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LEVARES CONYERS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Also, “whether evidence is admissible in evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is a question of law . . . [subject to] the de novo standard of review.” Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Powell v. State, 99 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1 On appeal, the State concedes error on this issue and supports a remand for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency hearing. 2The court also denied motions for mistrial based on the use of the informant’s out-of-court statements after the State’s opening argument and again during the State’s clo…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MARLON A. ELLISON v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Nardone v. State, 798 So. 2d 870, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). “[W]hether evidence falls within the statutory definition of hearsay is a matter of law, subject to de novo review.” Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) JEFFREY A HELMS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
cited Cited as authority (rule) ANTHONY MOSCATIELLO v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Powell v. State, 99 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
cited Cited as authority (rule) PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. v. ROSE POLLARI, etc
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Smith v. State, 186 So.3d 1056, 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Browne v. State, 132 So.3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Washburn v. Washburn
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Browne v. State, 132 So.3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). “‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” § 90.801, Fla. Stat. (2015).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rodney L. Ragin v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“The standard, of review for admissibility of evidence is abuse of discretion,' limited by the rules of evidence.” Browne v. State, 132 So.3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lucas v. State, 67 So.3d 332, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ronald Smith v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“The'standard of review for admissibility of evidence is abuse of discretion, limited by the rules of evidence. [W]hether evidence falls within the statutory definition of hearsay is a matter of law, subject to de novo review.” Browne v. State, 132 So.3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Lucas v. State, 67 So.3d 332, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Madigan
Vt. · 2015 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Brown , 883 P.2d at 950 (noting that “generally applicable evidentiary standards” adequately serve goal of ascertaining truth); Browne v. State , 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Madigan
Vt. · 2015 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Brown, 883 P.2d at 950 (noting that “generally applicable evidentiary standards” adequately serve goal of ascertaining truth); Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. Dist.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Landmark American Insurance Company v. Pin-Pon Corporation and Lexington Insurance Company
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Cordarrol Lawrence FULTON
v.
STATE of Florida
Nos. 4D13-1462, 4D13-1463.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan 15, 2014.
132 So. 3d 312
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Richard B. Greene, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant., No appearance required for appellee.
Ciklin, Conner, Gross.
Published
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Robinson v. State, 379 So.2d 222 (Fla.1979).

GROSS, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.