10-2121 ISAIAH DEANGELO DORTCH, v. STATE OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida First District Court » 2011 » 10-2121 ISAIAH DEANGELO DORTCH, v. STATE OF FLORIDA

State: Florida

Court: Florida First District Court

Docket No: 10-2121

Case Date: 06/20/2011

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ISAIAH DEANGELO DORTCH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed June 20, 2011. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Charles W. Arnold, Judge. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Paula S. Saunders, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D10-2121

PER CURIAM. Appellant, Isaiah Deangelo Dortch, challenges his convictions for fleeing a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer without violence, driving while license suspended, and leaving the scene of an accident. Dortch contends the trial

court erred by denying a motion in limine to exclude evidence that the car he was driving before his arrest had been reported stolen nearly three months earlier. We agree with the appellant and reverse. On October 22, 2009, the State charged Dortch by information with fleeing a law enforcement officer (count I), resisting an officer with violence (count II), driving while license suspended (count III), possession of cannabis (count IV), and two counts of leaving the scene of an accident (counts V and VI). Dortch moved to exclude any mention that the car he had been driving when the alleged events occurred was reported stolen. The prosecutor informed the court that she intended to call the manager of the rental car agency, the owner of the stolen vehicle, to testify that the car was stolen and to establish the arresting officer's need to make a felony arrest. Citing inadmissible hearsay and relevance grounds, defense counsel expressed concern that the jury would believe the appellant had been fleeing because he stole the car. Finding evidence that the car was stolen "highly relevant," the court denied the motion. As expected, at trial, the manager of a Jacksonville Avis Rent-A-Car testified that a red Chevy Cobalt was stolen from the lot on June 29, 2009. On September 16, 2009, police advised Avis that the car had been recovered. That afternoon, Officer Andres (Jacksonville Sheriff's Office) observed a red Chevrolet 2

Cobalt approaching him on University Boulevard. Officer Andres testified that he made a U-turn to follow the car and ran the vehicle's license plate number, learning that the vehicle had been stolen. Officer Andres further testified that he followed the car until it stopped abruptly in the middle of the street. The officer exited his patrol car, drew his service revolver, and told the suspect, Dortch, to turn off the engine. Instead, the appellant sped off and Officer Andres pursued with lights and sirens activated. Officer Andres terminated the chase after only a minute. Almost immediately after the chase ended, Dortch's vehicle was involved in multiple collisions. Officer Haire and his K-9 assistant tracked the appellant into an open field, where he located the suspect in some tall weeds and bushes. Assisted by another officer, Officer Haire pulled Dortch out of the bushes and tried to handcuff him. The appellant rolled over on his back and began flailing his arms. After Dortch's apprehension, a subsequent search revealed a plastic bag of marijuana on the floor of the front passenger side. A jury found the appellant guilty as charged on counts I, III, V, and VI; guilty of the lesser-included offense of resisting an officer without violence on count II; and not guilty on count IV. "As a general rule, a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be reversed, absent an abuse of discretion." McCray v. State, 919 So. 2d 647, 3

649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). "However, a trial court's discretion over such decisions is limited by the evidence code and the applicable case law, and its interpretation of those authorities is subject to de novo review." Hendricks v. State, 34 So. 3d 819, 822 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted, 49 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 2010). Appellant argues that testimony revealing that his vehicle had been stolen is hearsay and introduces impermissible collateral crime evidence. Hearsay is "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." See

Download 10-2121 ISAIAH DEANGELO DORTCH, v. STATE OF FLORIDA.pdf