Pollard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pollard v. State

807 So. 2d 735, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1409, 2002 WL 215011

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 2002

DocketNo. 3D00-3628

StatusPublished

This text of 807 So. 2d 735 (Pollard 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

Pollard v. State, 807 So. 2d 735, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1409, 2002 WL 215011 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph C. Pollard appeals his conviction for first degree murder and armed robbery.

First, the hearsay statement of witness Simmons was properly admitted into evidence. Defense counsel had successfully objected on earlier occasions that the State had failed to lay a proper predicate for demonstrating that Mr. Simmons’ statement qualified as an excited utterance. The State ultimately laid the proper predicate. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1999); Stoll v. State, 762 So.2d 870, 873 (Fla.2000); Damren v. State, 696 So.2d 709, 713-14 (Fla.1997); Pope v. State, 679 So.2d 710, 713 (Fla.1996). Once the proper predicate was laid, defense counsel quite properly made no further objection, and the statement was admitted into evidence.

Second, defendant-appellant Pollard contends that an unobjected-to portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument amounted to fundamental error. We disagree. The comment that the defendant’s girlfriend had helped dispose of the murder weapon was a fair comment on the evidence, being based on the defendant’s own confession. See Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1, 8 (Fla.1982). The comment that the State intended to prosecute Ms. Wright if successful in locating her was irrelevant, but when considered in context was not unfairly prejudicial to the defendant and certainly did not amount to fundamental error. See McDonald v. State, 743 So.2d 501, 505 (Fla.1999).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Joseph C. Pollard appeals his conviction for first degree murder and armed robbery.

First, the hearsay statement of witness Simmons was properly admitted into evidence. Defense counsel had successfully objected on earlier occasions that the State had failed to lay a proper predicate for demonstrating that Mr. Simmons’ statement qualified as an excited utterance. The State ultimately laid the proper predicate. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1999); Stoll v. State, 762 So.2d 870, 873 (Fla.2000); Damren v. State, 696 So.2d 709, 713-14 (Fla.1997); Pope v. State, 679 So.2d 710, 713 (Fla.1996). Once the proper predicate was laid, defense counsel quite properly made no further objection, and the statement was admitted into evidence.

Second, defendant-appellant Pollard contends that an unobjected-to portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument amounted to fundamental error. We disagree. The comment that the defendant’s girlfriend had helped dispose of the murder weapon was a fair comment on the evidence, being based on the defendant’s own confession. See Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1, 8 (Fla.1982). The comment that the State intended to prosecute Ms. Wright if successful in locating her was irrelevant, but when considered in context was not unfairly prejudicial to the defendant and certainly did not amount to fundamental error. See McDonald v. State, 743 So.2d 501, 505 (Fla.1999).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

807 So. 2d 735, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1409, 2002 WL 215011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollard-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack