terry's takes
Filtered by category: hearsayApril 9, 2024
3rd dca, hearsayCordovi v. State
A recent ruling clarified that a hearsay statement in a 911 call can be considered non-testimonial if made to seek assistance, rather than in response to police questioning or to create a record against someone. Such non-testimonial statements do not violate the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause and can be admitted in court. Under Florida’s hearsay rules, 911 calls may also qualify for exceptions like 'spontaneous statements' or 'excited utterances' if made during or immediately after the event, reflecting the caller’s perception or excitement, unless there are concerns about the statement’s reliability.
read moreApril 1, 2024
3rd dca, hearsayPhilip Morris USA Inc. v. Lipp
A 2-1 panel reversed a judgment for the estate of a deceased smoker against tobacco company Philip Morris based on a hearsay violation. At trial, the deceased smoker’s son told the jury that his mother, the decedent, was “upset at the tobacco companies because they told her that filtered cigarettes – that filters would filter out the bad stuff and keep her safe and she knew once she got lung cancer and had her lung removed that the filter didn't keep her safe and didn't filter out the bad stuff” and that tobacco companies “lied to me.” While statements of then-existing state of mind are admissible as a hearsay exception, statements after the fact about your recollections are not, so the statements were inadmissible hearsay. The majority found, without much analysis, that Plaintiff failed to show that the admission of the statements was harmless error. In dissent, Judge Emas agreed that the statements were improperly admitted, but pointed out reams of evidence that made the statements cumulative and harmless.
read moreMarch 15, 2023
3rd dca, 1983 excessive force, amendment of pleadings, business records, certificate of service, corporate representative, discovery sanctions violations, florida civil rights claim, hearsay, impact rule, medical malpractice presuit, negligence duty, personal jurisdiction, summary judgement standardWillis v. Accenture, Inc.
willis sued accenture under the florida civil rights act of 1992 (fcra) as codified in section 760.01, fla. stat. and for tortious interference with a business relationship.
read moreMarch 1, 2023
3rd dca, business records, corporate representative, hearsayMesa v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp.
In this property insurance case, Citizens Insurance’s corporate representative, Alicia Wright, testified about an adjuster’s findings that roof damage was due to non-covered wear and tear, not covered wind damage. The plaintiff objected, arguing Wright lacked personal knowledge of the inspection details, but the trial court allowed her testimony. Citizens won at trial, but on appeal, the District Court of Appeal (DCA) found Wright’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay because she had no firsthand knowledge and the adjuster’s report was not entered into evidence. The court held that this error likely impacted the verdict, reversed the decision, and ordered a new trial.
read moreContact Us
Our Promise
Aggressive Litigation. Honest Representation. Dedicated Communication. Respect and Compassion.


