L.A. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

L.A. v. State

252 So. 3d 407

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 22, 2018·No. No. 3D17-436·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See F.T. v. State, 146 So.3d 1270, 1272-73 & n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ("If a person steals a shirt from a store and the price stated on the tag affixed to the shirt is $100, the content of that price tag is not hearsay because it is not coming in to prove the truth of the matter asserted but only to establish what the tag "says." Its independent relevance is only as a result of the statutory language of the definition of "value," which is simply the price affixed to the retail item at the time *408it was stolen.... [W]e do not agree that a business records foundation must be laid before a witness is permitted to testify to her contemporaneous observation of the contents of the price tag affixed to the stolen item of retail merchandise.").

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See F.T. v. State, 146 So.3d 1270, 1272-73 & n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ("If a person steals a shirt from a store and the price stated on the tag affixed to the shirt is $100, the content of that price tag is not hearsay because it is not coming in to prove the truth of the matter asserted but only to establish what the tag "says." Its independent relevance is only as a result of the statutory language of the definition of "value," which is simply the price affixed to the retail item at the time *408it was stolen.... [W]e do not agree that a business records foundation must be laid before a witness is permitted to testify to her contemporaneous observation of the contents of the price tag affixed to the stolen item of retail merchandise.").

L.A. v. State, 252 So. 3d 407 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

252 So. 3d 407 (L.A. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related