Fuentes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 10, 1999

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1999-02-10

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 2005

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[A]ny such error is harmless in light of the defendant's confession and the overwhelming evidence of guilt.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 910 So. 2d 313 - Conner v. State

Relies on Soberon v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · 574 So. 2d 76 - Bruno v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-02-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence finding no error in the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion. Bruno v. State, 574 So.2d 76 (Fla.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 834, 112 S.Ct. 112, 116 L.Ed.2d 81 (1991). In so doing, we hold that Thompson v. State, 705 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), is inapplicable. Even if we were persuaded that admission of testimony based on documents that were not in evidence under the business records hearsay exception is error, any such error is harmless in light of the defendant’s confession and the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

¶2Affirmed.