Court Opinion

ID: 7597939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 06:55:56.628883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:24:45.559178
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Rejecting the appellant’s primary point on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s determination that, because the state demonstrated that it had been “unable to procure [the child victim’s] attendance or testimony by process or other reasonable means,” § 90.804(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1991), she was “unavailable as a witness,” within the meaning of § 90.803(23)(a)2.b., Fla.Stat. (1991), so as to permit the admission of her out of court statements under § 90.803(23). See Putnal v. State, 56 Fla. 86, 47 So. 864, 867 (1908); cf. Stano v. State, 473 So.2d 1282, 1286 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1093, 106 S.Ct. 869, 88 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986). See generally Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 804.1, at 546-47 (2d ed. 1984).
The other points presented have no merit and require no discussion.
Affirmed.