STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CLYDE MCPHADDER, 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 State appeals a trial court order suppressing recorded statements made by an unavailable informant during drug transactions. The appellate court reverses, holding that the informant's statements are not hearsay because they are offered to show the defendant's participation in the conversation and drug transaction planning, not for the truth of the matters asserted, and are therefore admissible despite the informant's unavailability.
The recorded statements of the informant are admissible because they are not offered to prove the truth of the matters she asserted, but rather to show the defendant engaged in the conversation with the informant and participated in plans to supply illegal drugs. Therefore, the statements do not constitute hearsay and are not excludable on that basis.
[1] The state may appeal an order suppressing evidence before trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(B).
[2] Statements made by an informant during drug transactions are not hearsay when offered to show the defendant's participation in conversations and drug supply plans, rather…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“her recorded statements are not hearsay and are admissible”
Establishes the central holding that the informant's statements do not constitute hearsay when offered for non-truth purposes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn informant, Mae Campbell, made statements during three purported drug transactions in which the defendant allegedly was present. These statements we…
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 Exceptions cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
The state appeals the trial court’s order striking statements made by an informant, Mae Campbell, on electronic recordings taped during three purported drug transactions in which appellee allegedly was present, on the ground that, due to her unavailability, informant Campbell would not be called as a witness by the state to testify at trial. We reverse. We first address a jurisdictional question raised by appellee. Contrary to the contention of appellee, we find that pursuant to rule' 9.140(c)(1)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the state has properly raised its issue by appeal at this time. To preclude the state from bringing this appeal would undermine the rationale for the rule since the state would be unable to raise the question after trial if a verdict was entered in favor of appellee. The rule provides, in pertinent part:
(1) Appeals permitted. The state may appeal an order:
(A) * * *
(B) Suppressing before trial confessions, admissions or evidence obtained by search and seizure;
* * * (Emphasis supplied)
Although the question on appeal is not one involving a search and seizure issue, the evidence which was the subject of the order appealed was “obtained by search and seizure” and was suppressed before trial. Therefore, despite the procedural treatment of a similar appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari by our sister court in State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), we find this question reviewable on direct appeal pursuant to rule 9.140(c)(1)(B).
Addressing the merits of the issue on appeal, the record indicates that prior to trial appellee moved to exclude the taped statements of Ms. Campbell on the ground that her statements are inadmissible hearsay since she will be unavailable at trial. However, the record shows that Ms. Campbell's statements were not being offered by the state to prove the truth of the matters she asserted thereon, but instead her statements were being presented into evidence for the purpose of showing that appellee engaged in the conversation with Ms. Campbell and took part in plans to supply illegal drugs to her. Therefore, her recorded statements are not hearsay and are admissible. See Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1982). Another eyewitness to the transactions is available to the state to make an in court identification of appellee. Since the taped statements of Ms. Campbell are not excludable on the basis of a hearsay objection, the trial judge erred in suppressing them.
REVERSED.
MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State v. Rickie Lee Palmore, 495 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1986)…felt that the phrase “obtained by search and seizure” modified all three elements of the rule, i.e. confessions, admissions, and evidence. We find that at least two other district courts have not so narrowly interpreted the rule. State v. McPhadder, 452 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (suppression orders reviewable under rule 9.140(c)(1)(B)), reversed on other grounds, 475 So. 2d 1215 (Fla.1985); State v. Segura, 378 So. 2d 1240 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). In Segura, the Second District held that a “motion in limine wa…
-
State v. Cesaero Brea, 530 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1988)…he district court held that an appeal was permitted under the provisions of rule 9.140(c)(1)(B) because the evidence which was the subject of the order appealed was obtained by search and seizure and was suppressed before trial. State v. McPhad-der, 452 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). This Court quashed the decision of the district court, stating that we did “not agree that the evidence was obtained by search and seizure. The evidence at issue consisted of statements made by an informant on electronic r…
-
McPHADDER v. State, 475 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1985)…PER CURIAM. We have for review State v. McPhadder, 452 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), because of direct and express conflict with State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The issue before us is whether the state may appeal a nonfinal pretrial…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- McArthur Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)