Frederick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frederick v. State

923 So. 2d 1288, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 4645, 2006 WL 847085

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 31, 2006

DocketNo. 5D05-2956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 923 So. 2d 1288 (Frederick 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

Frederick v. State, 923 So. 2d 1288, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 4645, 2006 WL 847085 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Fimber Frederick appeals the judgment and sentence imposed upon him after he was convicted by a jury of throwing a deadly missile at an occupied vehicle. The primary issue raised by Mr. Frederick is whether the trial court erred in allowing hearsay testimony under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.- See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). We affirm.

Whether the necessary state of mind is present for a court to admit a statement as an excited utterance is a preliminary fact to be determined by the trial court and the standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Elysee v. State, 920 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); K.V. v. State, 832 So.2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Cotton v. State, 763 So.2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). After [1289]*1289careful review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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