E.B. v. State
Decision Date | 11 October 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 87-1049,87-1049 |
Citation | 531 So.2d 1053,13 Fla. L. Weekly 2310 |
Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2310 E.B., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Kaplan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., BASKIN, J., and JOSEPH P. McNULTY, Associate Judge.
E.B., a juvenile, appeals an order withholding adjudication of delinquency and placing him in a community control program. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found E.B. guilty of aggravated battery. E.B. contends that the trial court erred in precluding him from presenting certain evidence in support of his claim that he acted in self-defense when he hit classmate John Randall with a tree branch and threw an unknown liquid in his eyes. Finding merit in each of the points raised, we reverse.
First, E.B. contends that the trial court erred in sustaining the state's objection to E.B.'s testimony that he was aware that Randall had a reputation as a good fighter and that on a previous occasion Randall had threatened to beat E.B.
A defendant who asserts that he acted in self-defense, § 776.012, Fla.Stat. (1985), must lay a proper foundation before presenting evidence of the victim's character; that evidence is relevant to resolve an issue as to the victim's conduct or as to the reasonableness of the defendant's fear at the time of the incident. Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835 (1891); Burk v. State, 497 So.2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ( ); Sanchez v. State, 445 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) ( ); Reddick v. State, 443 So.2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) ( ); Hager v. State, 439 So.2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ( ); E.C. v. State, 426 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ( ); Campos v. State, 366 So.2d 782, 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) ( ); §§ 90.404(1)(b)1; 90.803(21), Fla.Stat. (1987). See also C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 404.6, at 112 (2d ed. 1984).
The establishment of a proper predicate requires "a showing of some overt act by the [victim] at or about the time of the [incident] that reasonably indicated a need for action by the defendant in self-defense." Sanchez, 445 So.2d at 2; Hager, 439 So.2d at 997 ( ). In the case before us, E.B. presented evidence of Randall's overt acts. According to testimony, Randall jumped out of the car, approached E.B., questioned E.B. in an aggressive manner, and made statements that led E.B. to believe that he had a weapon in the car trunk. E.B. testified that he was afraid Randall intended to harm him. These circumstances tend to support E.B.'s self-defense claim. E.B.'s testimony demonstrated the existence of an issue as to E.B.'s state of mind and as to the meaning of Randall's conduct, rendering admissible evidence of Randall's reputation as a good fighter and evidence of his prior threats against E.B. The trial court erred in excluding that testimony.
E.B. also argues that the trial court erroneously sustained an objection to testimony concerning statements made to him by school administrators. Counsel proffered that school administrators advised E.B. to leave school early on the day the incident occurred because his life was in danger. The court excluded the testimony as hearsay and stated that the school administrators were available and should have been subpoenaed and subjected to cross-examination.
Hearsay is defined as "a statement, other than one made by a declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted." § 90.801(1)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987). Here, the purpose of the statement was not to prove the truth of the matter asserted--that E.B.'s life was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lozano v. State
...that he acted in self-defense, must lay a proper foundation before presenting evidence of the victim's character. E.B. v. State, 531 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The victim's character becomes relevant to resolve an issue as to the reasonableness of the defendant's fear at the time of the......
-
Duncan v. State, 91-3889
...state of mind or knowledge was error, and trial court's discretion was narrowly limited by rules of evidence); E.B. v. State, 531 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA1988). Instead, the statement was offered to demonstrate its effect on Appellant, who said he believed the rims, without the vehicle to wh......
-
Ware v. State, 90-2511
...denied, 479 U.S. 1022, 107 S.Ct. 680, 93 L.Ed.2d 730 (1986); Conley v. State, 592 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); E.B. v. State, 531 So.2d 1053, 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kennedy v. State, 385 So.2d 1020, 1021-1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); State v. Johnson, 382 So.2d 765, 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); ......
-
Hotelera Naco, Inc. v. Chinea
...that it was not relevant. See §§ 90.401, .402, Fla. Stat. (1995); Duncan v. State, 616 So.2d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); E.B. v. State, 531 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We therefore reverse and remand the case for a new ON MOTION FOR REHEARING FLETCHER, Judge. The motion for rehearing filed ......