Dowling v. State
618 So. 2d 373, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5856, 1993 WL 174865
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Dowling v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11850 →
Opinion
We have reconsidered this case in light of the Supreme Court’s mandate in Dowling v. State, 605 So.2d 465 (Fla.1992). We affirm based upon Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992).
We are affirming the convictions in this case because the admission of the child hearsay testimony did not rise to the level of reversible error. However, we caution the State that we will continue to scrutinize [374] the admission of child hearsay testimony to prevent prosecutorial overkill.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dowling v. State, 618 So. 2d 373, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5856, 1993 WL 174865 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).
618 So. 2d 373 (Dowling v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Pardo v. State
596 So. 2d 665 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Dowling v. State
605 So. 2d 465 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)