Wall v. State
Wall v. State
615 So. 2d 822; 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3269; 1993 WL 74260
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Wall v. State
Opinion of the Court
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.