Robinson v. State, 832 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Robinson v. State, 832 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for cluster 7814209.
Dedrick T. ROBINSON
v.
The STATE of Florida
No. 3D01-2754.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec 26, 2002.
832 So. 2d 936
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant., Richard E. Doran, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, and Mercedes Oxean, Legal Intern, for appellee.
Cope, Goderich, Schwartz.
Published

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dedrick T. Robinson appeals his convictions for burglary and theft. At trial, the defense properly objected to police officer testimony regarding the contents of the “Be On Lookout” (“BOLO”) announcement of the burglary in process. The objection should have been sustained, as the hearsay “content of that statement is inadmissible, especially where it is accusatory.” Conley v. State, 620 So.2d 180, 182 (Fla.1993) (emphasis in original); State v. Baird, 572 So.2d 904, 907-08 (Fla.1990). We are convinced, however, that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Kearse v. State, 662 So.2d 677, 684 (Fla.1995) (citing State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986)).

Affirmed.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH, J., concur.

Dissent

COPE, J.

(dissenting).

I am not convinced that the inadmissible hearsay was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.