Jiminez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jiminez v. State

589 So. 2d 1043, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12945, 1991 WL 267970

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 1991

DocketNo. 91-966

StatusPublished

This text of 589 So. 2d 1043 (Jiminez 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

Jiminez v. State, 589 So. 2d 1043, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12945, 1991 WL 267970 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Luis Jiminez appeals his conviction and sentence for sexual battery on a child less than twelve years old. We conclude that the evidentiary issue raised on appeal was not preserved for appellate review by objection in the trial court. See Rodriguez v. State, 433 So.2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Assuming objection had been made, we think the admission of the child’s hearsay statements did not constitute unfair bolstering under the circumstances of this case, and would not have required exclusion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). See generally State v. Pardo, 582 So.2d 1225, 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Finally, assuming arguendo that any of the statements should have been excluded, any error was entirely harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Luis Jiminez appeals his conviction and sentence for sexual battery on a child less than twelve years old. We conclude that the evidentiary issue raised on appeal was not preserved for appellate review by objection in the trial court. See Rodriguez v. State, 433 So.2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Assuming objection had been made, we think the admission of the child’s hearsay statements did not constitute unfair bolstering under the circumstances of this case, and would not have required exclusion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). See generally State v. Pardo, 582 So.2d 1225, 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Finally, assuming arguendo that any of the statements should have been excluded, any error was entirely harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 So. 2d 1043, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12945, 1991 WL 267970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jiminez-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack