From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Campos v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 17, 1986
489 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Opinion

No. 84-2634.

June 17, 1986.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Robert H. Newman, J.

Manuel Campos, in pro. per.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.


Campos has filed a statement in this appeal contending that the trial court erred in excluding from evidence the discovery deposition of an unavailable witness. We affirm. While the discovery deposition, taken pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(d), may have qualified as a hearsay exception under section 90.804(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), it was still inadmissible as substantive evidence absent compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(j). State v. James, 402 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1981); Barnett v. State, 444 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Terrell v. State, 407 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The public defender's motion to withdraw is granted.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Campos v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 17, 1986
489 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
Case details for

Campos v. State

Case Details

Full title:MANUEL CAMPOS, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jun 17, 1986

Citations

489 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

State v. Skolar

When the requisites of Rule 3.190(j) are not complied with, the testimony must be excluded as substantive…

Smith v. State

See also State v. James, 402 So.2d 1169, 1171 (Fla. 1981) (holding that discovery depositions may not be used…