LUIS MEDINA, PETITIONER,
v.
JACK SANDSTROM, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, RESPONDENT
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.
A defendant charged with life-imprisonment crimes was denied bail based on a trial judge's finding that proof of guilt was evident and presumption was great. The defendant challenged this denial via habeas corpus, arguing the judge improperly relied on hearsay evidence—a victim's sworn written statement to police that was not subject to cross-examination—in making the bail determination.
Hearsay statements made to police officers that are not subject to cross-examination cannot serve as a basis for denying bail. The court struck the hearsay evidence and remanded for the trial judge to reconsider the bail decision without reliance on the improperly admitted hearsay.
[1] Hearsay evidence, not subject to cross-examination, cannot serve as a basis for denying bail.
[2] A trial court may not rely solely on hearsay evidence when determining whether to deny bail.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The right of cross-examination is fundamental in a bail hearing.”
Establishes that cross-examination is a core requirement for evidence used in bail determinations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLuis Medina was charged with crimes punishable by life imprisonment. At the bail hearing, the trial judge considered evidence including a sworn writte…
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 Bail Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, charged with crimes punishable by life imprisonment, was denied bail by the trial court upon a finding that the proof of guilt was evident and the presumption was great. See Article I § 14, Fla.Const.; Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.130(a). He thereafter petitioned this court to issue a writ of habeas corpus.
At the bail hearing held below, the trial judge considered, inter alia, evidence in the form of a sworn written statement of one of the victims taken by a police officer.1 The petitioner objected to the trial judge considering this hearsay evidence. The trial judge candidly remarked:
“[I] do accept hearsay in bond hearings. I conduct them somewhat like probation hearings. Ordinarily, that testimony all by itself would not be able to establish the burden of proof, those kind of things, but I do accept it to corroborate things and matters like that.”
The right of cross-examination is fundamental in a bail hearing. Stansel v. State, 297 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). A statement made to a police officer by a victim of the crime which is not subject to cross-examination is hearsay and cannot serve as a basis for denying bail. Primm v. State, 293 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Compare James v. State, 241 So. 2d 383 (Fla.1970) (in which the prior statement of the victim taken at a preliminary hearing and subject to cross-examination by the defendant was held admissible). Where bond determinations have been made in part on the basis of hearsay testimony, we have struck the hearsay in reviewing the reasonableness of the bail. State ex rel. Bardina v. Sandstrom, 321 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). See also Rodriguez v. State, 305 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
We cannot discern the extent to which the trial judge was influenced in his decision to deny bail by the wrongfully admitted hearsay evidence. We accordingly remand this cause with directions that the hearsay statement of the victim be stricken from the record and that the trial judge, after conducting such additional evidentiary hearing as he deems necessary, reconsider his order denying bail.
Remanded.
. No statement was procured from the other victim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valdez-Garcia v. State, 965 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…Lowe v. Fla. Parole & Probation Comm’n, 416 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); (2) to test pretrial detention and the denial of pretrial bond or excessive pretrial bond, see State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, 253 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1971); Medina v. Sandstrom, 384 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); (3) to determine the right to a delayed appeal, see Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1969); (4) to challenge extradition, see State v. Cox, 306 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); and (5) to challenge the effectiveness of ap…
-
State v. Broom, 523 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…Lowe v. Fla. Parole & Probation Comm’n, 416 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); (2) to test pretrial detention and the denial of pretrial bond or excessive pretrial bond, see State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, 253 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1971); Medina v. Sandstrom, 384 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); (3) to determine the right to a delayed appeal, see Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1969); (4) to challenge extradition, see State v. Cox, 306 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); and (5) to challenge the effectiveness of ap…
-
Zuchel v. State, 824 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…w defense counsel to cross-examine the victim indicates his unwillingness to hear Zuchel’s side of the case. We agree that Zuchel’s allegation that the outright denial of the basic and fundamental right of cross-examination, see Medina v. Sandstrom, 384 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)(holding that the right to cross-examination is fundamental in a bail proceeding), would give a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of judicial bias. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition and remand…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stansel v. State, 297 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Columbus Fletcher Primm v. State, 293 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Rolando Bardina v. Sandstrom, 321 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- James v. State, 241 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1970)
- Rodriguez v. State of Fla. & Don Genung, 305 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)