Trombley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Trombley v. State

541 So. 2d 798, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1027, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2236, 1989 WL 39572

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 1989

DocketNo. 88-0662

StatusPublished

This text of 541 So. 2d 798 (Trombley 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

Trombley v. State, 541 So. 2d 798, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1027, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2236, 1989 WL 39572 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As to the admissibility of the tape recordings, we affirm upon the authority of Odum v. State, 403 So.2d 936 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 925, 102 S.Ct.1970, 72 L.Ed.2d 440 (1982), Tumulty v. State, 489 So.2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and section 934.03(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1985).

As to the admissibility of the “battered woman syndrome” evidence, we affirm upon the authority of Kruse v. State, 483 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. dismissed, 507 So.2d 588 (Fla.1987), Terry v. State, 467 So.2d 761, 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 476 So.2d 675 (Fla.1985), and State v. Ciskie, 110 Wash.2d 263, 268, 751 P.2d 1165, 1170 (1988).

As to the imposition of consecutive sentences, we affirm upon the authority of Murray v. State, 491 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1986).

ANSTEAD, LETTS and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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