Freber v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Freber v. State

352 So. 2d 106, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16654

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 1, 1977

DocketNo. 76-1483

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 352 So. 2d 106 (Freber 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

Freber v. State, 352 So. 2d 106, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16654 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

The Defendant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. At trial the eyewitness did not identify the Defendant as the person who committed the breaking and entering and [107]*107two deputies were called to testify that the eyewitness did identify the Defendant at the scene as the perpetrator. The facts of this case are thus quite similar to those set out in Laws v. State (Fla.4th DCA 1977), Case No. 76-1544, Opinion on Petition for Rehearing issued September 6, 1977. The only material difference is that the Defendant timely objected to the hearsay testimony of the deputies and that causes us to reverse the conviction. See Laws, supra; Willis v. State, 217 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1968); Willis v. State, 208 So.2d 458 (Fla.1st DCA 1968); Johnson v. State, 249 So.2d 452 (Fla.4th DCA 1971). The Judgment and Sentence are reversed and this cause is remanded for new trial in accordance with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

The Defendant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. At trial the eyewitness did not identify the Defendant as the person who committed the breaking and entering and [107]*107two deputies were called to testify that the eyewitness did identify the Defendant at the scene as the perpetrator. The facts of this case are thus quite similar to those set out in Laws v. State (Fla.4th DCA 1977), Case No. 76-1544, Opinion on Petition for Rehearing issued September 6, 1977. The only material difference is that the Defendant timely objected to the hearsay testimony of the deputies and that causes us to reverse the conviction. See Laws, supra; Willis v. State, 217 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1968); Willis v. State, 208 So.2d 458 (Fla.1st DCA 1968); Johnson v. State, 249 So.2d 452 (Fla.4th DCA 1971). The Judgment and Sentence are reversed and this cause is remanded for new trial in accordance with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 So. 2d 106, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freber-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack