From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frederick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Mar 31, 2006
923 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Opinion

No. 5D05-2956.

March 31, 2006.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, C. Alan Lawson, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ailene S. Rogers, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Fimber Frederick appeals the judgment and sentence imposed upon him after he was convicted by a jury of throwing a deadly missile at an occupied vehicle. The primary issue raised by Mr. Frederick is whether the trial court erred in allowing hearsay testimony under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). We affirm.

Whether the necessary state of mind is present for a court to admit a statement as an excited utterance is a preliminary fact to be determined by the trial court and the standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Elysee v. State, 920 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); K.V. v. State, 832 So.2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Cotton v. State, 763 So.2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). After careful review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Frederick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Mar 31, 2006
923 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
Case details for

Frederick v. State

Case Details

Full title:Fimber FREDERICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Mar 31, 2006

Citations

923 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Citing Cases

Taylor v. State

-------- Whether the declarant made an excited utterance is a preliminary question of fact for the trial…