D.J. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.J. v. State

67 So. 3d 1191

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 2011

DocketNo. 3D10-934

StatusPublished

This text of 67 So. 3d 1191 (D.J. 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.J. v. State, 67 So. 3d 1191 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Chief Judge.

D.J. appeals from an adjudication of delinquency claiming that the court below [1192]*1192erred in admitting his school attendance record into evidence. While we agree that the court below erred in admitting this evidence without proper authentication, see § 90.901, Fla. Stat. (2010) (“Authentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility. The requirements of this section are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”); A.Z. v. State, 383 So.2d 934, 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (reversing dependency determination where, among other errors, “[t]he court used the materials [including school records] in formulating its decision ... [that] were not identified, [nor] authenticated”), we affirm because a review of the record confirms the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986) (“The harmless error test ... places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.”).

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

WELLS, Chief Judge.

D.J. appeals from an adjudication of delinquency claiming that the court below [1192]*1192erred in admitting his school attendance record into evidence. While we agree that the court below erred in admitting this evidence without proper authentication, see § 90.901, Fla. Stat. (2010) (“Authentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility. The requirements of this section are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”); A.Z. v. State, 383 So.2d 934, 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (reversing dependency determination where, among other errors, “[t]he court used the materials [including school records] in formulating its decision ... [that] were not identified, [nor] authenticated”), we affirm because a review of the record confirms the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986) (“The harmless error test ... places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 So. 3d 1191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dj-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack