Van Pullen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Van Pullen v. State

622 So. 2d 19, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6909, 1993 WL 230142

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 1993

DocketNo. 91-2892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 622 So. 2d 19 (Van Pullen 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

Van Pullen v. State, 622 So. 2d 19, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6909, 1993 WL 230142 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of sexual battery, battery on a law enforcement officer, and resisting an officer with violence. We reverse.

Over defendant’s hearsay objection, the court permitted the arresting officer to testify that he had been advised to be on the lookout for suspects regarding a “possible rape and abduction”. Although there are circumstances in which some of the information in a dispatch to police officers is admissible to explain why the officers were at a particular place at a particular time, the inclusion of the description of the alleged crime in this case was not only unnecessary but highly prejudicial. The admission of this hearsay was therefore erroneous. Jones v. State, 577 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Harris v. State, 544 So.2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Defendant also correctly argues that the court erred in giving a flight instruction. Fenelon v. State, 594 So.2d 292 (Fla.1992); Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1992).

We therefore reverse for a new trial.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., KLEIN, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of sexual battery, battery on a law enforcement officer, and resisting an officer with violence. We reverse.

Over defendant’s hearsay objection, the court permitted the arresting officer to testify that he had been advised to be on the lookout for suspects regarding a “possible rape and abduction”. Although there are circumstances in which some of the information in a dispatch to police officers is admissible to explain why the officers were at a particular place at a particular time, the inclusion of the description of the alleged crime in this case was not only unnecessary but highly prejudicial. The admission of this hearsay was therefore erroneous. Jones v. State, 577 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Harris v. State, 544 So.2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Defendant also correctly argues that the court erred in giving a flight instruction. Fenelon v. State, 594 So.2d 292 (Fla.1992); Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1992).

We therefore reverse for a new trial.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., KLEIN, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 19, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6909, 1993 WL 230142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-pullen-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack