Lara v. State
Lara v. State
Concurring Opinion
(specially concurring).
I believe both that it was error to admit a prior written statement of the victim, which was inadmissible as an excited utterance, State v. Justice, 92 Ohio App.3d 740, 637 N.E.2d 85 (1994); State v. Dixon, 37 Wash.App. 867, 684 P.2d 725 (1984), or otherwise, see Coluntino v. State, 620 So,2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Reyes v. State, 580 So.2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and that portions
. For example:
There’s nothing up my sleeves. Nothing like that. Just the evidence and the truth. You're the truth-seekers. 'We who labor here, seek only truth.' We know what the truth is. You saw him on the stand, the guy's a- liar.
You have got to understand that he's lied to you. He barely looked you in the eye, because I can't say he lied right to your face, he’s a liar.
[[Image here]]
The Defendant lied. He lied on the stand. He lied to the police and he lied when he pled not guilty in this case, because he's guilty.
[[Image here]]
Oh, this is my favorite part. Let's talk about the Defendant testifying. Now, well it’s clear that the Defendant lies when it’s convenient.
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed. See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2003); Bradley v. State, 787 So.2d 732, 743-44 (Fla. 2001); Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010, 1028-29 (Fla. 2000); State v. Jano, 524 So.2d 660, 661-62 (Fla. 1988); Bell v. State, 847 So.2d 558, 560-61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Pino v. State, 776 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.