Wall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wall v. State

615 So. 2d 822, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3269, 1993 WL 74260

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 1993

DocketNo. 91-1658

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 615 So. 2d 822 (Wall 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

Wall v. State, 615 So. 2d 822, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3269, 1993 WL 74260 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State concedes that Appellant s right to confront witnesses was violated by the introduction of a deposition to perpetuate testimony at which Appellant was not present. Brown v. State, 471 So.2d 6 (Fla.1985). Its use constitutes fundamental error. Regarding the other issue raised, we find no error in the denial of Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

We reverse and remand for a new trial.

STONE and FARMER, JJ., 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.

The State concedes that Appellant s right to confront witnesses was violated by the introduction of a deposition to perpetuate testimony at which Appellant was not present. Brown v. State, 471 So.2d 6 (Fla.1985). Its use constitutes fundamental error. Regarding the other issue raised, we find no error in the denial of Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

We reverse and remand for a new trial.

STONE and FARMER, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 So. 2d 822, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3269, 1993 WL 74260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wall-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack