Rolle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rolle v. State

416 So. 2d 51, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28726

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 7, 1982·No. No. 81-2299·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A police officer testified at appellant’s trial that he placed appellant’s photograph in a photographic display for viewing by the alleged victim only after receiving certain undisclosed information from an undisclosed source. The victim then selected appellant’s photograph from the display. We believe the officer’s testimony constituted improper hearsay. Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Molina v. State, 406 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). However we do not find a sufficient objection by appellant to preserve this error for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

A police officer testified at appellant’s trial that he placed appellant’s photograph in a photographic display for viewing by the alleged victim only after receiving certain undisclosed information from an undisclosed source. The victim then selected appellant’s photograph from the display. We believe the officer’s testimony constituted improper hearsay. Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Molina v. State, 406 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). However we do not find a sufficient objection by appellant to preserve this error for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Rolle v. State, 416 So. 2d 51, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28726 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

416 So. 2d 51 (Rolle v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related