Herrera v. State, 4D03-45.
| Decision Date | 23 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D03-45.,4D03-45. |
| Citation | 879 So.2d 38 |
| Parties | Lazaro HERRERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and David John McPherrin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Lazaro Herrera was charged by Information with sexual battery without the use of physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury (Count I) and false imprisonment (Count II). A jury trial was held and the jury found him guilty as charged on Count I, but found him guilty of battery, a lesser included offense, on Count II. Judgment was entered in accordance with the jury verdict and the defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences. We affirm the conviction for sexual battery but reverse the conviction for simple battery and remand for resentencing.
The charges arise from an incident which occurred on July 28, 2001 involving the defendant's wife, Blanca Herrera (Mrs. Herrera), from whom he was separated at the time of the alleged assault. The case proceeded to trial, with the state asserting that the defendant coerced his wife into submitting to sexual intercourse, while the defendant contended that the sexual activity was not only consensual, but resulted from his estranged wife's suggestion.
Mrs. Herrera testified at trial that on July 28, 2001 the defendant came to her residence and asked her if she would come back to his house and read some papers for him because he does not read English very well. Mrs. Herrera agreed to go with him. She testified that after she got to his house, the defendant ordered her to take off her clothes and have sex with him. Mrs. Herrera further testified that she advised the defendant that she did not want to have sex but the defendant threatened that if she did not take off her clothes he would rip them off. Prior to being forced to have sexual intercourse with the defendant, he forced her to pose for nude photographs. Subsequent to engaging in sexual intercourse, Mrs. Herrera was forced to perform oral sex on the defendant. Before being permitted to leave the defendant's house, the defendant threatened her and told her not to call the police. The next day Mrs. Herrera notified the City of Pembroke Pines Police Department of the assault. Detective Bonnie Robinson began an investigation and advised Mrs. Herrera to go to the Sexual Assault Treatment Center for Broward County.
When Mrs. Herrera arrived at the Broward County Sexual Assault Treatment Center, she was seen and examined by Sylvia Miller, a licensed advanced registered nurse practitioner. Miller testified that she took a history from Mrs. Herrera in order to assist her in conducting her physical examination and to assist in making a diagnosis. Miller testified that Mrs. Herrera told her that she was forced to have sex and forced to engage in oral sex at which time semen was sprayed in her face. Miller also testified that Mrs. Herrera told her that she was threatened that if she did not remove her clothes, they would be ripped off. In addition, Miller testified that Mrs. Herrera said that she was forced to pose for nude photographs.
Prior to Miller testifying concerning this history, defense counsel objected contending that these statements were inadmissible hearsay. The trial court overruled the objection stating that the testimony fell under section 90.803(4), Florida Statutes (2002), which provides the following exception to the hearsay rule:
Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment by a person seeking the diagnosis or treatment, or made by an individual who has knowledge of the facts and is legally responsible for the person who is unable to communicate the facts, which statements describe medical history, past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inceptions or general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
The defendant argues that Miller's testimony does not fall within section 90.803(4) because the examination was not done for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment, but rather for the purpose of finding physical evidence to corroborate Mrs. Herrera's allegations of sexual assault.
In Conley v. State, 620 So.2d 180 (Fla.1993), the supreme court held that an alleged victim's statement to a doctor that she had been sexually assaulted orally, vaginally, and anally were reasonably pertinent to the physician's diagnosis or treatment of the victim's wounds and therefore an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to section 90.803(4). Id. at 184. However, the portion of the history that the sexual assault was done at gunpoint was inadmissible because it was not pertinent to the diagnosis or treatment. Id. Therefore, Mrs. Herrera's statement to Miller that she was forced to have sex and that semen was sprayed in her face is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to section 90.803(4). The state concedes that Mrs. Herrera's statement that she was threatened that if she did not remove her clothes that they would be ripped off and that nude pictures were taken of her are not relevant to medical diagnosis or treatment. The state, however, argues that the two inadmissible statements are harmless error as the nude pictures were introduced into evidence without objection and the threat of ripping Mrs. Herrera's clothes was not made a feature of the trial. We agree and conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this error did not contribute to the verdict.
As the second point on appeal, the defendant argues that he was unfairly prejudiced by the investigating detective Bonnie Robinson's testimony that while she conducted a search of the defendant's home, she retrieved a shotgun from the defendant's closet. Defense counsel made a contemporaneous objection which was sustained by the trial court and the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony. Defense counsel did not move for a mistrial at the time....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Veikoso
...or treatment. Id. Accord, State v. Hairston, 67 Ohio App.3d 341, 586 N.E.2d 1200, 1204 (Ohio Ct.App.1990); see also Herrera v. State, 879 So.2d 38, 40 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2004) (State conceded that alleged threat at gunpoint to rip off complainant's clothes and take nude pictures of her was no......
-
Ross v. State, 4D07-2362.
...For those which were objected to by one of the co-defendants, the trial court gave curative instructions. See Herrera v. State, 879 So.2d 38, 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that curative instruction was sufficient to cure any prejudicial effect of officer's statement). We cannot conclude t......
-
Ellick v. State, 4D04-4786.
...from the trial judge that the jury disregard the remark." Buenoano v. State, 527 So.2d 194, 198 (Fla.1988). See also Herrera v. State, 879 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that curative instruction was sufficient to cure any prejudicial effect of officer's statement). We conclude that ......
-
Parton v. State , 5D10–3803.
...based on the same acts. Decisional law holds that a defendant can be convicted of both sexual battery and battery. See Herrera v. State, 879 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Beltran v. State, 700 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). However, if the battery is based on the same acts that form the bas......
-
Evidence
...committed a theft as part of the victim’s medical treatment. Roberts v. State, 990 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (See Herrera v. State , 879 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) for discussion of what statements made to a sexual assault nurse practitioner qualify as statements made for medical di......