WILLIE WELLS, 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.
The court reversed an attempted second-degree murder conviction because the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony from a police officer regarding witness statements, which was not harmless error despite the witness's presence at trial.
Hearsay statements by a witness are inadmissible even when the witness testifies at trial, and their admission constitutes reversible error when the statements are highly adverse to the defendant and contrary to the witness's trial testimony.
[1] No probable cause exception to the hearsay rule exists, and information provided to an officer upon which an arrest decision is based remains inadmissible hearsay.
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“The fact that the witness testified at the trial does not affect the inadmissibility of his hearsay statements.”
Court explaining that a witness's presence at trial does not cure the admission of their prior hearsay statements.
A police officer testified to out-of-court statements made by a witness to an incident, which were adverse to the defendant and contradicted the witne…
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 Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant’s conviction of attempted second degree murder is reversed because of the erroneous admission of hearsay testimony by the investigating police officer concerning material statements related to him by a witness to the incident.1 Bricker v. State, 462 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); § 90.802, Fla.Stat. (1983). The fact that the witness testified at the trial does not affect the inadmissibility of his hearsay statements. Bricker, Aho v. State, 393 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Since, contrary to the only contention now urged by the state, we find that the admission of the out-of-court statements, which were highly adverse to the defendant (and contrary to the witness’s trial testimony), was not harmless, a new trial is required.
Reversed.
. The evidence was apparently admitted below on the theory that information given to an officer upon which his decision to arrest the defendant was based involves some kind of "probable cause exception” to the hearsay rule. We re-reiterate that no such exception exists. Col-tins v. State, 65 So. 2d 61 (Fla.1953); Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81, 32 So. 836 (1902); Postell v. State, 398 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 411 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1981); see also Lane v. State, 430 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (no "BOLO exception").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Postell v. State, 398 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Collins v. State, 65 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1953)
- Johnson Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1902)
- Bricker v. State, 462 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Tivi AHO v. State, 393 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Williams v. State, 430 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Lane v. State, 430 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)