FLOLIRLA M. ROBINSON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a probation revocation where the trial court relied solely on hearsay evidence (a child's out-of-court statements to a detective) to find the probationer violated her probation by abusing her daughter. The court held that while hearsay is admissible in revocation hearings, probation cannot be revoked based exclusively on hearsay.
Probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. While hearsay is admissible in probation revocation hearings, there must be other non-hearsay evidence connecting the probationer to the alleged violation.
[1] Probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence.
[2] Hearsay evidence is admissible in a probation revocation proceeding, but requires corroboration by other evidence of the defendant's misconduct.
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“while hearsay evidence is admissible in a probation revocation proceeding, a defendant's probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of such evidence”
States the controlling legal principle that hearsay alone is insufficient for probation revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Robinson was on four-year probation for aggravated child abuse. A child protective investigator observed bruises on Robinson's daughter afte…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence For Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant Flolirla M. Robinson contends that the trial court erred in revoking her probation solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. We agree and reverse.
Appellant, who was on four years probation for aggravated child abuse, was charged with violating condition five of her probation by physically abusing her daughter, Sharika McSwain. The state presented the following evidence at appellant’s ensuing revocation hearing.
Deputy Michael Marino testified that he observed bruises on Sharika MeSwain’s chin, chest, and left leg after he was dispatched to appellant’s apartment to investigate an anonymous tip concerning child abuse. The officer also identified photographs depicting the extent of the child’s injuries. According to Marino, both appellant and Sharika independently advised him that these injuries had. been sustained during a fall down a flight of stairs.
Seven-year-old Sharika McSwain, who was called as the state’s second witness, was unable to recall any aspect of either the incident or its investigation.
Detective Terry Ann Bacon, the state’s third witness, testified that she interviewed Sharika at a shelter for abused children five days after the incident. At that time, Sharika told Bacon that appellant had struck her with a belt several times on the day before Marino’s visit as a sanction for misbehavior. According to the detective, Sharika also revealed that appellant had instructed her to tell Deputy Marino that she had fallen down the stairs.
At the hearing, appellant again stated that her daughter had been injured during a fall.
It is well-established that while hearsay evidence is admissible in a probation revocation proceeding, a defendant’s probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of such evidence. Clemons v. State, 388 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Reeves v. State, 366 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Combs v. State, 361 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). As the Fourth District stated in Combs, “The rule requiring more than hearsay to establish a violation of probation requires other evidence of the defendant’s misconduct, not just other evidence.” 351 So. 2d at 1103.
In the instant case, only the hearsay testimony of Terry Ann Bacon connected appellant with the alleged probation violation. Neither Deputy Marino’s testimony nor the photographic evidence of Sharika’s injuries established appellant’s guilt of any misconduct. Accordingly, we reverse the order of revocation and subsequent adjudication and sentence and remand with instructions to reinstate appellant’s probation.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIMES and DANAHY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. State, 744 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…. 4th DCA 1977), the Fourth District Court of Appeal stated that “the rule requiring more than hearsay to establish a violation of probation requires other evidence of the defendant’s misconduct, not just other evidence.” See also Robinson v. State, 445 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)(quoting Combs). The cut on Hall’s hand is insufficient to corroborate his alleged misconduct in this case. This is particularly true in light of the explanation offered by the defense witnesses about the origin of the cut. In Robi…
-
Gomez v. State, 724 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…breaking the victim’s arm. The evidence presented at the hearing did not support that allegation. There is no direct evidence that supports that Gomez caused the injury to the victim. All of the evidence was hearsay. This court in Robinson v. State, 445 So. 2d 1135, 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), noted that it is error to revoke a defendant’s probation solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. Furthermore, the hearsay evidence presented in this case pointed to the husband as the one who abused the child. The police o…
Authorities Cited
- Clemons v. State, 388 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Reeves v. State, 366 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)