green
Positive treatment
18.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eloyn Ingraham v. State of Florida
Lines v. State, 143 So. 3d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citing Williams v. State, 567 So. 2d 9, 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)). “[D]ecisions on the admission of evidence” are reviewed “for an ‘abuse of discretion, limited by the rules of evidence.’” Adams v. State, 277 So. 3d 249 , 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (quoting Lucas v. State, 67 So. 3d 332, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SHERARD ADAMS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
We review decisions on the admission of evidence for an “‘abuse of discretion, limited by the rules of evidence.’” Lucas v. State, 67 So. 3d 332, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citation omitted). “‘In considering a trial court’s ruling on admissibility of evidence over an objection based on the Confrontation Clause, our standard of review is de novo.’” McWatters v. State, 36 So. 3d 613, 637 (Fla. 2010) (citation omitted). • THE CO-DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST The defendant argues the trial court erred in admitting the co- defendant’s out-of-court statements b…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ALVIN DUNBAR v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Whether evidence falls within the statutory definition of hearsay is a matter of law, subject to de novo review.” Lucas v. State, 67 So.3d 332, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citations, quotation marks, and alteration omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kevin Osorio v. State of Florida
Admissibility of Confidential Informant’s Statements In general, rulings on the admission or exclusion of evidence are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, “limited by the rules of evidence.” Lucas v. State, 67 So.3d 332, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Tengbergen v. State, 9 So.3d 729, 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)). “[W]hether evidence falls within the statutory definition of hearsay is a matter of law, subject to de novo review.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Burkey v. State, 922 So.2d 1033, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodney L. Ragin v. State of Florida
“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
“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)
Browne v. State
“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.” Lucas v. State, 67 So.3d 332, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tolbert v. State
Whether evidence falls within the statutory definition of hearsay is a matter of law, subject to de novo review.” Lucas v. State, 67 So.3d 332, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citations, alteration, and quotation marks omitted). “ ‘Hearsay 1 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(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Merritt v. State
Whether evidence falls within the statutory definition of hearsay is a matter of law, subject to de novo review.” Lucas v. State, 67 So.3d 332, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citations, alteration, and quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ritz v. State
Analysis “A trial court’s decision as to whether to grant a motion for mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Lucas v. State, 67 So.3d 332, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Linic v. State
“The standard of review for admissibility of evidence is abuse of discretion, limited by the rules of evidence.” Lucas v. State, 67 So.3d 332, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shedd v. State of Florida (Sarasota County)
A reasonable doubt can come from the evidence, a lack of evidence, or a conflict in the evidence.” (Id., pp. 363-65.) A prosecutor is prohibited from advancing “burden-shifting arguments which suggest that the defendant has an obligation to produce any evidence or to prove innocence.” United States v. Simon, 964 F.2d 1082, 1086 (11th Cir. 1992); see also Lucas v. State, 67 So.3d 332, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (stating that a prosecutor shifts the burden of proof by insinuating that the defendant needs to prove anything or inviting the jury to convict him for a reason other than the State�…
Rhoderick Lewis LEWIS, II, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent
1D11-3240.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jul 8, 2011.
Rhoderick Lewis Lewis, II, pro se, Petitioner., Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Wolf, Thomas, Clark.
Published
The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.