Robinson v. State

832 So. 2d 936, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19374, 2002 WL 31870321
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Robinson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 773 So. 2d 566
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 26, 2002·No. No. 3D01-2754·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Dedrick T. Robinson appeals his convictions for burglary and theft. At trial, the defense properly objected to police officer testimony regarding the contents of the “Be On Lookout” (“BOLO”) announcement of the burglary in process. The objection should have been sustained, as the hearsay “content of that statement is inadmissible, especially where it is accusatory.” Conley v. State, 620 So.2d 180, 182 (Fla.1993) (emphasis in original); State v. Baird, 572 So.2d 904, 907-08 (Fla.1990). We are convinced, however, that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Kearse v. State, 662 So.2d 677, 684 (Fla.1995) (citing State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986)).

Affirmed.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH, J., concur.

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

Robinson v. State, 832 So. 2d 936, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19374, 2002 WL 31870321 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

832 So. 2d 936 (Robinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Baird
572 So. 2d 904 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1990)
Kearse v. State
662 So. 2d 677 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
State v. DiGuilio
491 So. 2d 1129 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Conley v. State
620 So. 2d 180 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)