Brunelle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brunelle v. State

456 So. 2d 1324, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2172, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15369

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 10, 1984

DocketNo. 83-2298

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 456 So. 2d 1324 (Brunelle v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brunelle v. State, 456 So. 2d 1324, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2172, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15369 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, charged with aggravated assault, was found guilty of the lesser included offense of assault. He was adjudged guilty and placed on probation for a period of six months with the special conditions that he serve thirty days in jail and pay a $300.00 fine. We affirm.

The major contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by admitting certain hearsay testimony from the victim’s father. We agree that the testimony was inadmissible hearsay. However, it amounted to nothing more than a brief duplication of the victim’s admissible testimony which was subject to full cross-examination. As such, we are satisfied that the evidentiary error did not affect the verdict and, thus, can be classified as harmless error. See Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 369, 70 L.Ed.2d 195 (1981). We are guided by the principle that “a defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one,” for there are no perfect trials. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 135, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 1627, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (quoting Lut-wak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 619, 73 S.Ct. 481, 490, 97 L.Ed. 593 (1953)). Since the error in the case at bar was harmless and did not impair the fairness of the trial, the defendant’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur. GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, charged with aggravated assault, was found guilty of the lesser included offense of assault. He was adjudged guilty and placed on probation for a period of six months with the special conditions that he serve thirty days in jail and pay a $300.00 fine. We affirm.

The major contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by admitting certain hearsay testimony from the victim’s father. We agree that the testimony was inadmissible hearsay. However, it amounted to nothing more than a brief duplication of the victim’s admissible testimony which was subject to full cross-examination. As such, we are satisfied that the evidentiary error did not affect the verdict and, thus, can be classified as harmless error. See Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 369, 70 L.Ed.2d 195 (1981). We are guided by the principle that “a defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one,” for there are no perfect trials. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 135, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 1627, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (quoting Lut-wak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 619, 73 S.Ct. 481, 490, 97 L.Ed. 593 (1953)). Since the error in the case at bar was harmless and did not impair the fairness of the trial, the defendant’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur. GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 So. 2d 1324, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2172, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brunelle-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack