69 So. 3d 316
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Brown appeals judgments and sentences for first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, aggravated fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer, and resisting an officer without violence.
- The State introduced Miller's friend's trial-testimony recounting Miller's statements implicating Brown and Chestnut in the crimes, offered outside the jury.
- The statements described robbing victims described as Mexicans on a payday, with Miller and Brown allegedly shooting two victims.
- The trial court admitted Miller's statements under Machado-based trustworthiness and under section 90.803(18)(e) as co-conspirator statements.
- Brown argues the statements were testimonial under Crawford and that defense counsel was ineffective for not timely objecting.
- The appellate court affirms, finding no reversible error and upholding the admissibility and the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller's statements were testimonial and violated Crawford | Brown argues statements were testimonial. | State argues statements were nontestimonial. | Not testimonial; Crawford not violated. |
| Whether Miller's statements were admissible under 90.804(2)(c) and Machado | Brown contends lack of guarantees of trustworthiness. | State contends corroborating circumstances show trustworthiness. | Admissible under 90.804(2)(c) and Machado. |
| Whether trial counsel's performance was deficient for not objecting under Crawford or 90.804(2)(c) | Brown asserts ineffective assistance due to improper objections. | State argues objections preserved and rulings proper. | No deficient performance; no prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Machado v. State, 787 So.2d 112 (Fla.4th DCA 2001) (trustworthiness required for statements against penal interest with corroboration)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (distinctly defines testimonial statements for Confrontation Clause)
- State v. Contreras, 979 So.2d 896 (Fla.2008) (non-testimonial statements not subject to Confrontation Clause)
- Looney v. State, 803 So.2d 656 (Fla.2001) (distinguishes Crawford-based analyses in Florida context)
- Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (U.S. 1999) (particularized guarantees of trustworthiness considerations)
- Brooks v. State, 787 So.2d 765 (Fla.2001) (fact-specific distinction regarding statements against interest)