Michael A. Moore v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michael A. Moore v. State of Florida

174 So. 3d 497, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12463, 2015 WL 4934756

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 19, 2015

Docket4D13-1146

StatusPublished

This text of 174 So. 3d 497 (Michael A. Moore v. State of Florida) 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

Michael A. Moore v. State of Florida, 174 So. 3d 497, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12463, 2015 WL 4934756 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 646-47 (Fla.2008) (holding that a trial court may find that a violation of probation for an alleged battery may be proven by a preponderance of the evidence through a hearsay statement of the victim and non-hearsay testimony of the direct observation of the victim’s injury and the attendant circumstances, and explaining: “whether non-hearsay evidence, including direct testimony of an observation of victim injury, is sufficient to support a hearsay allegation of battery is dependent upon the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Consequently, the trial court must assess the credibility of the particular wit *498 nesses, the reliability of the available evidence, and the totality of the evidence under the circumstances of each individual case.”)

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 646-47 (Fla.2008) (holding that a trial court may find that a violation of probation for an alleged battery may be proven by a preponderance of the evidence through a hearsay statement of the victim and non-hearsay testimony of the direct observation of the victim’s injury and the attendant circumstances, and explaining: “whether non-hearsay evidence, including direct testimony of an observation of victim injury, is sufficient to support a hearsay allegation of battery is dependent upon the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Consequently, the trial court must assess the credibility of the particular wit *498 nesses, the reliability of the available evidence, and the totality of the evidence under the circumstances of each individual case.”)

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 So. 3d 497, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12463, 2015 WL 4934756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-a-moore-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack