Cruz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cruz v. State

557 So. 2d 668, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1169, 1990 WL 17514

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 1990

DocketNo. 89-214

StatusPublished

This text of 557 So. 2d 668 (Cruz 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

Cruz v. State, 557 So. 2d 668, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1169, 1990 WL 17514 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

The appellant, Jorge Alberto Cruz, was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery, one for stabbing a man named Little and the other for stabbing a man named Taylor. We reverse the conviction for the stabbing of Taylor because the state at trial admittedly failed to present evidence as to the identity of Taylor except through inadmissible hearsay, to which the defense interposed a timely objection. See State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823 (Fla.1976); Graham v. State, 479 So.2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 411 So.2d 384 (1981). Thus, the corpus delicti of the crime charged in Count One of the information (aggravated battery of Roger Taylor) was not proven.

We find no merit in the appellant’s contention that he was improperly convicted of the stabbing of Little pursuant to Count Two of the information. That conviction is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

COBB, Judge.

The appellant, Jorge Alberto Cruz, was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery, one for stabbing a man named Little and the other for stabbing a man named Taylor. We reverse the conviction for the stabbing of Taylor because the state at trial admittedly failed to present evidence as to the identity of Taylor except through inadmissible hearsay, to which the defense interposed a timely objection. See State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823 (Fla.1976); Graham v. State, 479 So.2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 411 So.2d 384 (1981). Thus, the corpus delicti of the crime charged in Count One of the information (aggravated battery of Roger Taylor) was not proven.

We find no merit in the appellant’s contention that he was improperly convicted of the stabbing of Little pursuant to Count Two of the information. That conviction is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 668, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1169, 1990 WL 17514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack