Morrison v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morrison v. State

161 So. 3d 564, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17595, 2014 WL 5461967

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 29, 2014

DocketNo. 2D13-1709

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 161 So. 3d 564 (Morrison 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

Morrison v. State, 161 So. 3d 564, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17595, 2014 WL 5461967 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Roger Peter Morrison appeals his judgments and sentences for battery of a law enforcement officer and obstructing or opposing an officer with violence. The only issue raised on appeal is the trial court’s decision to admit, as an excited utterance, a digital recording of a 911 telephone call from an alleged victim of domestic violence. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (2012). Mr. Morrison is correct that the trial court erroneously failed to conduct the hearing or make the required predicate findings described in Tucker v. State, 884 So.2d 168, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), before admitting this evidence as an excited utterance. Nevertheless, the 911 recording was relevant only to a charge of domestic violence for which the jury found Mr. Morrison not guilty. The 911 call was the event that prompted law enforcement to come to the location where Mr. Morrison subsequently committed the offenses on the officers. As a result, the improperly admitted evidence was not relevant to the charges for which he was convicted. We have reviewed the record and conclude that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Roger Peter Morrison appeals his judgments and sentences for battery of a law enforcement officer and obstructing or opposing an officer with violence. The only issue raised on appeal is the trial court’s decision to admit, as an excited utterance, a digital recording of a 911 telephone call from an alleged victim of domestic violence. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (2012). Mr. Morrison is correct that the trial court erroneously failed to conduct the hearing or make the required predicate findings described in Tucker v. State, 884 So.2d 168, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), before admitting this evidence as an excited utterance. Nevertheless, the 911 recording was relevant only to a charge of domestic violence for which the jury found Mr. Morrison not guilty. The 911 call was the event that prompted law enforcement to come to the location where Mr. Morrison subsequently committed the offenses on the officers. As a result, the improperly admitted evidence was not relevant to the charges for which he was convicted. We have reviewed the record and conclude that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 So. 3d 564, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17595, 2014 WL 5461967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack