Coleman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coleman v. State

592 So. 2d 788, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 866, 1992 WL 16573

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 1992

DocketNo. 90-2218

StatusPublished

This text of 592 So. 2d 788 (Coleman 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

Coleman v. State, 592 So. 2d 788, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 866, 1992 WL 16573 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Rejecting the appellant’s primary point on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s determination that, because the state demonstrated that it had been “unable to procure [the child victim’s] attendance or testimony by process or other reasonable means,” § 90.804(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1991), she was “unavailable as a witness,” within the meaning of § 90.803(23)(a)2.b., Fla.Stat. (1991), so as to permit the admission of her out of court statements under § 90.803(23). See Putnal v. State, 56 Fla. 86, 47 So. 864, 867 (1908); cf. Stano v. State, 473 So.2d 1282, 1286 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1093, 106 S.Ct. 869, 88 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986). See generally Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 804.1, at 546-47 (2d ed. 1984).

The other points presented have no merit and require no discussion.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Rejecting the appellant’s primary point on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s determination that, because the state demonstrated that it had been “unable to procure [the child victim’s] attendance or testimony by process or other reasonable means,” § 90.804(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1991), she was “unavailable as a witness,” within the meaning of § 90.803(23)(a)2.b., Fla.Stat. (1991), so as to permit the admission of her out of court statements under § 90.803(23). See Putnal v. State, 56 Fla. 86, 47 So. 864, 867 (1908); cf. Stano v. State, 473 So.2d 1282, 1286 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1093, 106 S.Ct. 869, 88 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986). See generally Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 804.1, at 546-47 (2d ed. 1984).

The other points presented have no merit and require no discussion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 So. 2d 788, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 866, 1992 WL 16573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack