From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morrison v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct 29, 2014
161 So. 3d 564 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

Summary

reaching argument concerning absence of hearing and predicate findings where appellant specifically raised the issue

Summary of this case from Roop v. State

Opinion

No. 2D13–1709.

10-29-2014

Roger Peter MORRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Carol J.Y. Wilson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin–Schomaker, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Carol J.Y. Wilson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin–Schomaker, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Roger Peter Morrison appeals his judgments and sentences for battery of a law enforcement officer and obstructing or opposing an officer with violence. The only issue raised on appeal is the trial court's decision to admit, as an excited utterance, a digital recording of a 911 telephone call from an alleged victim of domestic violence. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (2012). Mr. Morrison is correct that the trial court erroneously failed to conduct the hearing or make the required predicate findings described in Tucker v. State, 884 So.2d 168, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), before admitting this evidence as an excited utterance. Nevertheless, the 911 recording was relevant only to a charge of domestic violence for which the jury found Mr. Morrison not guilty. The 911 call was the event that prompted law enforcement to come to the location where Mr. Morrison subsequently committed the offenses on the officers. As a result, the improperly admitted evidence was not relevant to the charges for which he was convicted. We have reviewed the record and conclude that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Morrison v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct 29, 2014
161 So. 3d 564 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

reaching argument concerning absence of hearing and predicate findings where appellant specifically raised the issue

Summary of this case from Roop v. State
Case details for

Morrison v. State

Case Details

Full title:Roger Peter MORRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Date published: Oct 29, 2014

Citations

161 So. 3d 564 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

Citing Cases

Roop v. State

First, Mr. Roop did not object to any aspect of the procedure in the trial court, has not raised any aspect…

Livingston v. State

Thus, the trial court did not conduct a hearing or make the required predicate findings before admitting the…