BOBBY GENE BAILEY, 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.
The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a first-degree murder conviction on rehearing, finding that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay statements of the victim to prove the defendant's motive, violating the hearsay exception rules. Although the evidence was circumstantial but sufficient for jury consideration, the admission of prejudicial hearsay in this circumstantial evidence case constituted reversible error.
The court reversed the conviction, concluding that the improperly admitted hearsay statements were not harmless error. The statements were inadmissible under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule because they were offered to prove the defendant's motive, not the victim's state of mind, and the victim's state of mind was not at issue in the case.
[1] Hearsay testimony offered to prove the motive of the defendant is not admissible under the exception for statements of the declarant's then existing state of mind.
[2] The admission of prejudicial hearsay testimony, when offered to prove the defendant's motive, constitutes reversible error.
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“the improperly admitted hearsay statements of the deceased victim, which statements tended to establish a motive for appellant to have committed the homicide, cannot be deemed harmless error under the circumstances of this case”
Establishes that despite circumstantial evidence sufficiency, the prejudicial hearsay was reversible error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBailey was convicted of first-degree murder. During the state's case in chief, two witnesses testified about statements made to them by the victim. Th…
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 State Of Mind Exception To Hearsay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By opinion filed June 11, 1982, we affirmed appellant’s conviction of first degree murder, but upon consideration of appellant’s timely filed petition for rehearing, we conclude that our prior decision was incorrect and that one of the errors argued by appellant, i.e., the admission, over objection, of prejudicial hearsay testimony, has merit and requires that we reverse the judgment and remand this cause for a new trial.
The State, as part of its case in chief, introduced over objection the testimony of two witnesses, each of whom testified as to statements made to him by the victim, each of which statement was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The statements were hearsay by definition, § 90.801, Fla.Stat., but the trial court felt them to be admissible under the exceptions contained in § 90.803(3), Fla.Stat. as a statement of declarant’s then existing state of mind. It is clear from the record, however, that the statements were not offered to prove the declarant’s state of mind (such state of mind not being an issue in the action), nor were the statements offered to prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant. To the contrary, such statements were quite obviously offered to prove the state of mind or motive of the defendant, a purpose for which the hearsay exception created by § 90.803(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981) does not apply. Kennedy v. State, 385 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Van Zant v. State, 372 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
The state’s evidence was almost wholly circumstantial, but at least marginally sufficient to go to the jury. Thus, while we find no error in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial, nor an abuse of discretion in permitting the introduction of certain photographs of the deceased, we conclude that the improperly admitted hearsay statements of the deceased victim, which statements tended to establish a motive for appellant to have committed the homicide, cannot be deemed harmless error under the circumstances of this case. Consequently, the judgment and sentence are severally reversed and this cause remanded with instructions that appellant be granted a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
THOMPSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Correll v. State, 523 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1988)…3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985). Because Susan Correll’s state of mind was not at issue and her statements could not be used to prove Correll’s state of mind, the testimony was inadmissible. Hunt v. State, 429 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Bailey v. State, 419 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Kennedy v. State, 385 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). However, in view of the other evidence against Correll, we find that the admission of such testimo [*566] ny was harmless error. See Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla.),…
-
Brooks v. State, 787 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2001)…§ 90.803(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). Under this exception, however, a declarant’s state [*771] ment of intent under section 90.803(8) is only admissible to infer the future act of the declarant, not the future act of another person. See Bailey v. State, 419 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (stating that statements by a victim are not admissible to prove subsequent acts of a defendant). Further, ordinarily, a victim’s state of mind is not a material issue, nor is it probative of a material issue in a murder case. Se…1 / 2
-
Hodges v. State, 595 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1992)…and, thus, the statements fall within the definition of hearsay. The State suggests that if the statements were hearsay, an exception to the prohibition of their admission exists because they were used to prove a state of mind. In Bailey v. State, 419 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the district court correctly held that statements of a victim cannot be used to prove the state of mind or motive of a defendant because the hearsay exception created by subsection 90.- [*932] 803(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1989),…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- van Zant v. State, 372 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Annita Louise Kennedy v. State, 385 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)