Puryear v. State
This text of 820 So. 2d 359 (Puryear 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.
Opinion
Kevin PURYEAR, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Margaret Good Earnest, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
*360 EN BANC ON MANDATE FROM THE SUPREME COURT
PER CURIAM.
In Puryear v. State, 810 So.2d 901 (Fla. 2002), the supreme court held that section 90.801(2), Florida Statutes (2000), did not authorize victim Amy Deese's out-of-court descriptions of her assailant to Danny Cratsenberg and Detective Rhonda Wardlaw. This was a close case on the issue of identification. We cannot therefore say that the admission of this testimony was harmless error. Appellant's robbery conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER, STONE, WARNER, FARMER, KLEIN, STEVENSON, SHAHOOD, GROSS, TAYLOR, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
820 So. 2d 359, 2002 WL 663473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puryear-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.