History
  • No items yet
midpage
Wall v. State
615 So. 2d 822
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1993
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

The State concedes that Appellant s right to confront witnesses was violated by the introduction of a deposition to perpetuate testimony at which Appellant was not present. Brown v. State, 471 So.2d 6 (Fla.1985). Its use constitutes fundamental error. Regarding the other issue raised, we find no error in the denial of Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

We reverse and remand for a new trial.

STONE and FARMER, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Wall v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Mar 17, 1993
Citation: 615 So. 2d 822
Docket Number: No. 91-1658
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.