Opinion

Gonzalez v. State

2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 18748 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 28, 2007

Full text

Juan M. GONZALEZ v. The STATE of Florida

PER CURIAM. On the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in its determination that the State’s witness was unavailable to testify in person at trial, as defined in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(j)(6), due to her advanced age and illness. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted this witness’s perpetuated deposition testimony. See DiBattisto v. State, 480 So.2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence for first-degree murder with a firearm. Affirmed.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Gersten, Green, Schwartz
Cluster ID: 7848185

Citations

2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 18748
971 So. 2d 891
2007 WL 4179326

Cited by

Richardson v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 15, 2016
Knox v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 3, 2012

Parentheticals

affirming trial court’s discretionary decision to determine witness was unavailable “due to her- advanced age and illness”
Richardson v. State
“[W]e cannot conclude that the trial court erred in its determination that the State’s witness was unavailable to testify in person at trial.... Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted this witness’s perpetuated deposition testimony.”
Knox v. State