State v. Cherryhomes, 647 So. 2d 841

OVERTON, Justice.

We have for review Cherryhomes v. State, 635 So.2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), in which the district court of appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance:

DOES A FINDING OF INCOMPETENCY TO TESTIFY BECAUSE ONE IS UNABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO TELL THE TRUTH SATISFY THE LEGISLATIVE “TESTIFY OR BE UNAVAILABLE” REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 90.803(23)(a)(2)?

Id. at 988. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently answered this question affirmatively in State v. Townsend, 635 So.2d 949 (Fla.1994). Because the district court in this case reached a contrary conclusion, we quash the district court’s decision and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Townsend.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Cherryhomes

Court Name: Supreme Court of Florida

Date Published: Dec 22, 1994

Citations: 647 So. 2d 841; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 15; 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1966; 1994 WL 708481; No. 83628

Docket Number: No. 83628

Court Abbreviation: Fla.