D.F. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.F. v. State

730 So. 2d 384, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4118, 1999 WL 174210

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 31, 1999

DocketNo. 98-0741

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 730 So. 2d 384 (D.F. 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

D.F. v. State, 730 So. 2d 384, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4118, 1999 WL 174210 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting testimony under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). We disagree and affirm.

Whether or not the declarant has the necessary state of mind for his or her statement to constitute an excited utterance is a preliminary question of fact for the court to decide. See Perry v. State, 675 So.2d 976, 979 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 684 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1996). Furthermore, absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, a trial court’s evidentiary ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. See Maggard v. State, 399 So.2d 973, 975 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1059, 102 S.Ct. 610, 70 L.Ed.2d 598 (1981). We find that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the witness’s testimony under the excited utterance hearsay exception.

Affirmed.

WARNER, STEVENSON, JJ., and CONNER, BURTON C., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting testimony under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). We disagree and affirm.

Whether or not the declarant has the necessary state of mind for his or her statement to constitute an excited utterance is a preliminary question of fact for the court to decide. See Perry v. State, 675 So.2d 976, 979 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 684 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1996). Furthermore, absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, a trial court’s evidentiary ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. See Maggard v. State, 399 So.2d 973, 975 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1059, 102 S.Ct. 610, 70 L.Ed.2d 598 (1981). We find that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the witness’s testimony under the excited utterance hearsay exception.

Affirmed.

WARNER, STEVENSON, JJ., and CONNER, BURTON C., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

730 So. 2d 384, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4118, 1999 WL 174210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/df-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack