SCOTT BRYANT JACOBS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this appeal from a second-degree murder conviction, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed based on the trial court's erroneous admission of hearsay evidence—a statement by the defendant's sister admitting her brother's fault. The court found the statement failed to meet the requirements for res gestae exception and was prejudicial given the defendant's self-defense claim.
The court held that the statement was inadmissible hearsay that failed to meet the legal requirements for the res gestae exception and that its admission was prejudicial error requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
[1] Hearsay evidence, which consists of statements made by third persons not produced as witnesses, is generally inadmissible.
[2] Statements made by a declarant who did not witness the act in question, were not made at the scene of the event in the sight or hearing of the accused or victim, and were…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Statements made by third persons not produced as witnesses are usually objectionable as hearsay.”
Establishes the general rule that the sister's statement should be excluded
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant drove on the highway shoulder to pass slower traffic while heading to a concert with his sister and others. The victim, also traveling i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Res Gestae Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
In this appeal from a conviction of second degree murder, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence. We reverse.
While on his way to a rock concert, appellant with his' sister and others as passengers, drove his vehicle on the right hand shoulder of a congested highway in order to pass slow moving traffic. The victim, who was traveling in the same direction, blocked appellant’s progress. The two drivers exited their vehicles and an altercation between them ensued. During this altercation, the appellant stabbed the victim, who was removed from the scene by ambulance and subsequently died from his injuries.
Upon cross-examination of a defense witness, the trial court permitted the State to elicit, as part of the res gestae, a statement made to her by the appellant’s sister. The witness, a girlfriend of the victim, testified that appellant’s sister told her: “I’m sorry, I know it’s my brother’s fault.” This statement was allegedly made while the two girls were following the ambulance to the hospital in another vehicle.
Statements made by third persons not produced as witnesses are usually objectionable as hearsay. Halfrich v. State, 122 Fla. 375, 165 So. 285 (Fla.1936). This is particularly true when the statements are themselves conclusions or opinions of the declarant. Mitchum v. State, 56 Fla. 71, 47 So. 815 (Fla.1908). As this Court stated in Elmore v. State, 291 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), the rule is not without its exceptions. Where the statement was (1) spontaneous, with all that term legally embraces, (2) made by one who witnessed the act concerning which the statement was made, (3) made at the scene of the homicide in the sight or hearing of the accused or victim, and (4) relevant to a material issue in the case, it is admissible as part of the res gestae. Id.
We find the instant statement fails to meet these criteria. The record does not reflect whether the declarant witnessed the altercation nor does it reflect how soon after the altercation the statement was made. Obviously, it was not made at the scene of the homicide in the sight or hearing of the accused or victim in that the accused had previously left the scene and the victim was at that time being transported to the hospital in an ambulance. The admission of the statement was therefore error. Although we are tempted to view its admission as harmless error, we are compelled to find that it was prejudicial in light of the close question regarding appellant’s plea of self defense. The jury may well have been influenced by the appellant’s own sister’s conclusion in determining guilt.
Accordingly, the conviction is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
BERANEK, J., and WOODROW M. MELVIN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Halfrich v. State, 122 Fla. 375 (Fla. 1936)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hubert Lee Williams v. Shepard, 291 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Elmore v. State, 291 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Mitchum v. State, 56 Fla. 71 (Fla. 1908)