Mixon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mixon v. State

899 So. 2d 496, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5423, 2005 WL 900621

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-0787

StatusPublished

This text of 899 So. 2d 496 (Mixon 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

Mixon v. State, 899 So. 2d 496, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5423, 2005 WL 900621 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s conviction is AFFIRMED. The error, if any, in admitting the victim’s out-of-court statement to Deputy Bates, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A harmless error analysis applies to the recent United States Supreme Court decision of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 17-18 (1st Cir.2004); United States v. Jones, 393 F.3d 107, 109 (2d Cir.2004); United States v. Robinson, 389 F.3d 582, 593 (6th Cir.2004); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir.2004); Williams v. United States, 858 A.2d 978, 981 (D.C.2004); Porter v. State, 278 Ga. 694, 606 S.E.2d 240, 243 (2004); Vigil v. State, 98 P.3d 172, 179 (Wyo.2004); [497]*497Somervell v. State, 883 So.2d 836, 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

ERVIN, KAHN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s conviction is AFFIRMED. The error, if any, in admitting the victim’s out-of-court statement to Deputy Bates, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A harmless error analysis applies to the recent United States Supreme Court decision of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 17-18 (1st Cir.2004); United States v. Jones, 393 F.3d 107, 109 (2d Cir.2004); United States v. Robinson, 389 F.3d 582, 593 (6th Cir.2004); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir.2004); Williams v. United States, 858 A.2d 978, 981 (D.C.2004); Porter v. State, 278 Ga. 694, 606 S.E.2d 240, 243 (2004); Vigil v. State, 98 P.3d 172, 179 (Wyo.2004); [497]*497Somervell v. State, 883 So.2d 836, 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

ERVIN, KAHN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

899 So. 2d 496, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5423, 2005 WL 900621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mixon-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack