Sheets v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sheets v. State

668 So. 2d 295, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1553, 1996 WL 69637

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

DocketNo. 94-3414

StatusPublished

This text of 668 So. 2d 295 (Sheets 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

Sheets v. State, 668 So. 2d 295, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1553, 1996 WL 69637 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from convictions for sexual battery upon a child less than 12 years of age and lewd and lascivious act upon a child less than 16 years of age. We find merit in one of the four issues presented for review. Appellant correctly contends the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements of a child witness who was not the victim under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes. See State v. Dupree, 656 So.2d 430 (Fla.1995).

This error is subject to a harmless error analysis. See Arney v. State, 652 So.2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). With regard to the hearsay testimony of a child witness who was not the victim, the situation in this case is similar to that in Arney. As in that case, “we believe the improperly admitted out-of-court statements might well have had a significant reinforcing effect in the minds of the jury regarding the child[ ]’s credibility.” 652 So.2d at 438-39. See also Weatherford v. State, 561 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). After a review of the entire record, we are unable to say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

JOANOS, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from convictions for sexual battery upon a child less than 12 years of age and lewd and lascivious act upon a child less than 16 years of age. We find merit in one of the four issues presented for review. Appellant correctly contends the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements of a child witness who was not the victim under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes. See State v. Dupree, 656 So.2d 430 (Fla.1995).

This error is subject to a harmless error analysis. See Arney v. State, 652 So.2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). With regard to the hearsay testimony of a child witness who was not the victim, the situation in this case is similar to that in Arney. As in that case, “we believe the improperly admitted out-of-court statements might well have had a significant reinforcing effect in the minds of the jury regarding the child[ ]’s credibility.” 652 So.2d at 438-39. See also Weatherford v. State, 561 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). After a review of the entire record, we are unable to say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

JOANOS, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 So. 2d 295, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1553, 1996 WL 69637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheets-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack