Supreme Court of Florida
State v. Jones
August 26, 1993625 So. 2d 821
Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida quashed the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision and remanded the case, holding that the physicians' statements were admissible as prior consistent statements under section 90.801(2)(b) rather than under the medical diagnosis exception or the special child‑abuse hearsay exception. The Court rejected applying the federal Renville test in Florida and emphasized reliance on the statutory scheme of section 90.803(23).
Holding
- Whether statements to medical personnel by child victims of sexual abuse are admissible under section 90.803(4) (medical diagnosis and treatment exception).. The statements are not admissible under section 90.803(4) because they do not meet the "reasonably pertinent" test and the Renville criteria were not satisfied.
Docket 80,069
Cited authorities
- rule 803(4)
- Section 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat.
- section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes
- Ann. 89-95
- 72 Minn. L. Rev. 523
- 67 N.C. L. Rev. 257
- 72 Minn. L. Rev. 523
Cited by
- Fred Lee Colvard, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellee
- Fred Lee Colvard, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellee
- Bernardino Cabrera v. State of Florida — Winsor, J., Dissenting
- Bernice Milton Garrett, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellee
- Bernice Milton Garrett, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellee
- Ben Lemon v. the State of Florida
- David W. Pridgeon v. State of Florida — Ervin, J., Concurring
- Robert E. Claridy v. State of Florida