Summary
In *Manuel v. State*, 16 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), the court reversed an aggravated battery conviction, holding that the victim’s testimonial statement to a police officer—made in response to direct questioning—was inadmissible under *Crawford v. Washington* because the defendant had no prior opportunity for cross-examination, even though the statement qualified as an excited utterance. The court also ruled that failure to move for a continuance waives an objection to a late amendment of the information, and that erroneously admitted evidence may still support denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. The decision certified conflict with *Blanton v. State* on the admissibility of testimonial hearsay under the Confrontation Clause.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to amend the information on the day of jury selection.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal.
- Whether the trial court erred in admitting the victim's statement to a police officer as an excited utterance in violation of the Confrontation Clause.
Holdings
- Appellant is not entitled to relief because he failed to move for a continuance.
- The motion was properly denied; the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
- The trial court erred; the statement was inadmissible because it was testimonial and the defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine.
Key quotations
“a trial court should rarely, if ever, grant a motion for judgment of acquittal on the issue of intent.” (835)
“The statement should not have been admitted, despite its nature as an excited utterance, because it does not meet the requirements necessary to protect Appellant's right to confront witnesses against him.” (835)
“The victim's statement was testimonial in nature because it was made in response to the officer's direct questioning; the State has not demonstrated that the victim was unavailable to testify; and the prior cross-examination of the victim at deposition was done only for purposes of discovery and not to perpetuate the victim's testimony.” (835)
“The trial court's error is not harmless, for the victim's statement is the only direct eyewitness testimony that the victim was injured by the hatchet swung by Appellant.” (835)
Factual background
Appellant was charged with aggravated battery involving a hatchet. The victim made a statement to a police officer identifying how the victim was injured. This statement was admitted at trial as an excited utterance. The victim's statement was the only direct eyewitness testimony that the victim was injured by the hatchet swung by Appellant.
Procedural history
Appellant was convicted and sentenced for aggravated battery in the trial court. He appealed, raising three issues. The trial court admitted a victim's statement to a police officer as an excited utterance. The appellate court initially affirmed but granted rehearing, vacated the original opinion, and now reverses.
Remand instructions
for a new trial