Annotations, Discussions, Cases:
Cases Citing Statute 90.805
Total Results: 38
969 So. 2d 938, 2007 WL 1933048
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 2007 | Docket: 1403693
Cited 55 times | Published
...y because it passed through two declarants. Vitale's testimony contained two levels of hearsayHagin to Johnson and Johnson to Vitale. Hearsay within hearsay is admissible if each part of the statement falls within an exception to the hearsay rule. § 90.805, Fla....
549 So. 2d 179, 1989 WL 106349
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 14, 1989 | Docket: 1719890
Cited 19 times | Published
...Moreover, because the testimony of A is hearsay within hearsay in that it combines the hearsay statements of both B and C, it is inadmissible unless the hearsay statements of both B and C conform "with an exception to the hearsay rule as provided in s. 90.803 or s. 90.804." § 90.805, Fla....
495 So. 2d 806, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2053, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9863
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 1986 | Docket: 1747138
Cited 17 times | Published
...tained in the report is itself *809 hearsay. The general rule is that a hearsay statement which includes another hearsay statement is admissible only when both statements conform to the requirements of a hearsay exception. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 90.805, at 563 (2d ed....
...a bystander to an accident, the bystander's statement is hearsay and not included within the business records exception because the statement was not made by a person with knowledge who was acting within the regular course of the business activity. Section 90.805, Florida Statutes (1983) restates the general rule and provides that hearsay within hearsay, i.e., the bystander's statement, is admissible if "each part of the combined statement conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule." Thus,...
880 So. 2d 730, 2004 WL 1175488
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 28, 2004 | Docket: 1295016
Cited 11 times | Published
...issible as excited utterances. See Stoll v. State, 762 So.2d 870, 873-74 (Fla.2000). Second, the statements themselves constituted hearsay within hearsay. Therefore, they were inadmissible unless both statements conformed to a hearsay exception. See § 90.805; Hill v....
951 So. 2d 939, 2007 WL 675354
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2007 | Docket: 1682581
Cited 9 times | Published
...ecause the statements in the reports were not based upon the personal knowledge of an agent of the business or agency); Harris v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n, 495 So.2d 806, 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (quoting CHARLES EHRHARDT, FLORIDA EVIDENCE *944 § 90.805, at 563 (2d ed....
843 So. 2d 962, 2003 WL 1916693
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 2003 | Docket: 1243910
Cited 9 times | Published
...s. Glenn so testifies. § 90.803(18), Fla. Stat. (2001). Ms. Glenn's repeating of that statement to the detective is hearsay when testified to by the detective, unless admissible for impeachment purposes or under an applicable hearsay exception. See § 90.805, Fla....
38 So. 3d 874, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9119, 2010 WL 2507051
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 2010 | Docket: 1658356
Cited 8 times | Published
..."A court judgment is hearsay `to the extent that it is offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted in the judgment.'" United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1036 (9th Cir.2007) (citation omitted). As to those matters, there must be an applicable hearsay exception. Stoll, 762 So.2d at 876; § 90.805 (2009); see also Charles W....
971 So. 2d 280, 2008 WL 80223
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 9, 2008 | Docket: 1731987
Cited 7 times | Published
...Levey did not hear Love talk about wanting to harm officers; the knowledge came from some unidentified third party. Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule, "provided each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception" to the rule. § 90.805, Fla....
546 So. 2d 741, 1989 WL 72735
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 1989 | Docket: 1730932
Cited 6 times | Published
...are simply hearsay within hearsay and would only be admissible if they, too, conformed to the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Harris, 495 So.2d at 808-09; Van Zant v. State, 372 So.2d 502, 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), § 90.805, Fla....
846 So. 2d 1233, 2003 WL 21297232
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2003 | Docket: 1301655
Cited 5 times | Published
...Game and Fresh Water Fish Com'n, 495 So.2d 806, 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Van Zant v. State, 372 So.2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). To be admissible under these circumstances, the hearsay statements made to the authors must themselves fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. § 90.805, Fla....
908 So. 2d 1185, 2005 WL 2045447
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 26, 2005 | Docket: 2544851
Cited 4 times | Published
...for further consideration. "Except as provided by statute, hearsay evidence is inadmissible." § 90.802, Fla. Stat. (2001). Statements that constitute hearsay within hearsay are inadmissible unless both statements conform to a hearsay exception. See § 90.805; Smith v....
605 So. 2d 527, 1992 WL 227763
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 16, 1992 | Docket: 1702301
Cited 3 times | Published
...ually witnessed the matters about which she was speaking. Such statements may, therefore, involve hearsay within hearsay. Absent proof that the underlying statement met a hearsay exception or was based on personal knowledge, it is inadmissible under section 90.805, Florida Statutes (1989).[7] [7] We are not unmindful of the case of City of Miami v....
993 So. 2d 105, 2008 WL 4629572
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 21, 2008 | Docket: 1516371
Cited 3 times | Published
...u back tomorrow morning as well. (Emphasis added). Defense counsel argued that Ms. Baldwin's statement constituted a separate layer of hearsayhearsay within hearsaywhich could not come in without qualifying under an exception of its own. [2] See § 90.805, Fla....
...She was recounting statements she said she heard Ms. Baldwin make. Ms. Baldwin's statements were not, of course, business records themselves. As recounted by Ms. Zepp, they were not admissible, because they did not qualify for an exception to the hearsay rule in their own right. See § 90.805, Fla....
520 So. 2d 69, 1988 WL 8411
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 1988 | Docket: 1300655
Cited 3 times | Published
...n in the report was hearsay, and "a hearsay statement which includes another hearsay statement is admissible only when both statements conform to the requirements of a hearsay exception." Harris, 495 So.2d at 809. See also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 90.805 (2d ed....
981 So. 2d 484, 2008 WL 582512
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 2008 | Docket: 1515692
Cited 2 times | Published
...t the constitutional right to due process and a fair trial. The admission of Nieves' deposition testimony would have been hearsay within hearsay. However, such hearsay is admissible if each component conforms to an exception to the hearsay rule. See § 90.805, Fla....
17 So. 3d 312, 2009 WL 1586819
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 2009 | Docket: 1141884
Cited 2 times | Published
...stent statement under section 90.801(2)(b). We further conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the investigating officer's hearsay-within-hearsay testimony as to J.E.A.'s account of Appellant's threat not to allow him to play with his toys. Section 90.805, Florida Statutes (2008), provides that "hearsay within hearsay" may be admissible "provided each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule." In the instant case, Appellant allegedly threatened J.E.A....
579 So. 2d 201, 1991 WL 60012
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 22, 1991 | Docket: 1432010
Cited 2 times | Published
...witnessed the matters about which she was speaking. *205 Such statements may, therefore, involve hearsay within hearsay. Absent proof that the underlying statement met a hearsay exception or was based on personal knowledge, it is inadmissible under section 90.805, Florida Statutes (1989)....
174 So. 3d 1011
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 11, 2015 | Docket: 2656158
Cited 1 times | Published
...3d 770, 780 (Fla. 2013)). Under the Florida Evidence
Code, “[h]earsay within hearsay is not excluded under s. 90.802, provided each
part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule as
provided in s. 90.803 or s. 90.804.” § 90.805, Fla....
17 So. 3d 795, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11326, 2009 WL 2475148
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 14, 2009 | Docket: 1645155
Cited 1 times | Published
...§ 90.802, Fla. Stat. (2007). Hearsay within hearsay, which describes what she reported on the tape recording that Mr. Fowler had told her, is similarly inadmissible unless "each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule." § 90.805, Fla....
17 So. 3d 312, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7203
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 2009 | Docket: 60249087
Published
threat not to allow him to play with his toys. Section 90.805, Florida Statutes (2008), provides that “hearsay
247 So. 3d 11
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2018 | Docket: 7062005
Published
Marley and Gurino were unavailable to testify. Section 90.805, Florida Statutes, allows the admission of
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 28, 2021 | Docket: 60088898
Published
under other exceptions to the hearsay rule. See § 90.805 (“Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded under
260 So. 3d 1172
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2018 | Docket: 64699959
Published
conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule[.]" § 90.805, Fla. Stat.; see also Gosciminski v. State , 994
260 So. 3d 1172
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2018 | Docket: 64699960
Published
conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule[.]" § 90.805, Fla. Stat.; see also Gosciminski v. State , 994
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2018 | Docket: 8455095
Published
conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule[.]” § 90.805, Fla. Stat.; see also Gosciminski v. State, 994
