 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edwards v. State8/2/2000
st only `relate' to the event causing the excitement . . . ." 524 So. 2d at 661-62. Here the young woman, upon observing this very serious automobile accident, said that she had been at a party with the defendant. "He was drunk and we told him not to drive." The young woman's statement sufficiently "relates" to the event causing the excitement, namely, the serious automobile accident.
Defendant also argues that there was an inadequate predicate. Bergman testified that he had this conversation with the young woman within ten minutes after the accident. Defendant argues that since the young woman's statement referred to the party she had attended with the defendant, it follows that in order to lay a proper predicate, the State had to establish how long it had been since the defendant and the young woman left the party. We disagree. The relevant question was whether the statement was made "while the person is under the stress of excitement caused by the event," 524 So. 2d at 661, and the relevant event was the automobile accident. There was a proper predicate. The admission of this excited utterance into evidence was within the discretion of the trial court.
The State concedes that there must be a new sentencing proceeding. The defendant was sentenced under the 1995 guidelines. While this appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court held those guidelines to be unconstitutional. See Trapp v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S 429 (Fla. June 1, 2000); Heggs v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S 137 (Feb. 18, 2000). Since defendant's offense date of April 27, 1996, fell within the window period for such a challenge, the State acknowledges that the defendant is entitled to be resentenced under the guidelines in effect before the enactment of chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.
|