JAMES B. SCOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Probation revocation reversed because the sole evidence of violations consisted exclusively of hearsay statements from third parties, which is insufficient under Florida law.
A probation violation cannot be based exclusively on hearsay evidence.
[1] A probation violation may not be based exclusively on hearsay evidence, including hearsay testimony of a probation officer regarding statements made by third parties.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“It is well established, however, that a probation violation may not be based exclusively on hearsay evidence.”
Court stating the controlling legal standard for probation revocation proceedings.
Scott's probation officer testified only to hearsay statements from a woman at Scott's claimed residence and his designated employer's representative …
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 Hearsay Evidence In Probation Revocation Hearings cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
Scott’s probation was revoked on the ground that he had given false information to Lois Mack, his probation officer, concerning the place of his residence and the identity of his employer. Mack was the sole witness against the appellant at the revocation hearing. Concerning the alleged violations, she testified only to the hearsay statements of a woman at the home address supplied by Scott that he did not live there and a representative of his designated employer that he had never worked there. It is well established, however, that a probation violation may not be based exclusively on hearsay evidence. Clemons v. State, 388 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla.2d DCA 1980) (only evidence of probationer’s terminating employment without permission was “the hearsay testimony of the probation supervisor about what appellant’s employer had said in a telephone conversation;” finding of violation on that ground reversed); Reeves v. State, 366 So. 2d 1229 (Fla.2d DCA 1979) (hearsay testimony of probation officer insufficient); Combs v. State, 351 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (hearsay testimony of police officer insufficient); Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 630 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); Hampton v. State, 276 So. 2d 497 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). Since that was the case here, the order of revocation and consequent adjudication and sentence are reversed and the appellant is ordered restored to probation.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lira v. State, 579 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…y. Davis v. State, 510 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Walker v. State, 426 So. 2d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Clayton v. State, 422 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Combs v. State, 351 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); see also Scott v. State, 406 So. 2d 100, 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Because the order of revocation of community control is supported by two valid grounds, the order is affirmed, but the cause is remanded with directions to strike the finding that the defendant committed the crime of aggra…
-
Wolmer v. Chrysler Corp., 474 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…that contention because it was' not raised in the trial court. See Wiggs & Maale Construction Co. v. Harris, 348 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Gould v. National Bank of Florida, 421 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Keyes Co. v. Rocky Graziani, Inc., 406 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Moreover, a motion for a directed verdict is not the proper vehicle for challenging allegedly inconsistent verdicts. See Cutchins v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad, 101 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1958). IV As an alternative, Chrysler puts for…
-
Meyer v. State, 445 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…arsay evidence. See, e.g., Terry v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Brown v. State, 338 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Franklin v. State, 226 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Scott v. State, 406 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). However, a review of the hearing transcript shows that, although Meyer objected to the majority of hearsay evidence adduced at the hearing by the state, she did not object to her probation officer’s hearsay testimony that she had…
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
- Combs v. State, 351 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Clemons v. State, 388 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Hampton v. State, 276 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Reeves v. State, 366 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)