FRANKLIN ADAMS, 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.
Franklin Adams appealed the revocation of his probation, challenging the sufficiency of evidence used to support the revocation order. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that probation cannot be revoked solely on unsubstantiated hearsay when the underlying records were never properly admitted into evidence.
Probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of unsubstantiated hearsay. While probation department records may be admitted under the business records exception with proper predicate, the state failed to introduce the records into evidence or establish proper foundation, making the hearsay insufficient to sustain revocation.
[1] Probation department records may be admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if a proper predicate is established.
[2] Hearsay is admissible in probation revocation proceedings, but probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence.
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“probation may not be revoked solely on the basis of such evidence”
Establishes the key principle that hearsay alone is insufficient for probation revocation, citing McCrary v. State and Reeves v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state presented only testimony from a probation intake officer who relied on her review of probation department records regarding appellant. The t…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of an order revoking his probation. He claims the record does not contain sufficient evidence to sustain the order of revocation.
The state presented only the testimony of the probation intake officer who testified on the basis of her review of the probation department’s records on appellant. Appellant objected to this testimony as hearsay. The trial court found that the probation department records fell within the business records exception of section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes (1985) and allowed the testimony-
Initially we believe that records prepared by the probation department may, with the showing of a proper predicate, be admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. However in this case the state failed to introduce the records into evidence. While hearsay is admissible in revocation proceed ings, probation may not be revoked solely on the basis of such evidence. McCrary v. State, 464 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Reeves v. State, 366 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Despite the presence of the probation records in the courtroom and despite the probation officer relying upon them as the source of her testimony, the state never introduced the records into evidence nor did it lay a proper foundation for their introduction into evidence. Without a proper foundation and introduction of the records into evidence the trial court could not then, nor can this court on review, determine whether these records can and do fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule. While the trial court made the comment “I will allow them in,” it is not clear whether it is refering to the admission of the records or to the question pertaining to the records. The absence of the records from our record on appeal leads us to believe that the trial court’s ruling related only to the questions concerning the probation department’s records.
The record before us contains nothing but unsubstantiated hearsay of unknown origin to sustain the revocation and that is insufficient under the case law previously cited.
Accordingly this matter is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED.
ANSTEAD, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
McPHERSON v. State, 530 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…nce or left the county of his residence without first obtaining the permission of his probation officer. Hearsay is admissible in probation revocation proceedings but probation may not be revoked solely on the basis of such evidence. Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Miller v. State, 444 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Here, the evidence supporting the violation based on change of residence condition was supported by a combination of nonhearsay admissions and personal observations, as well a…
-
Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ecords or as business records is equally without merit. It is well-settled that public records and reports or business records are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule pro [*711] vided they are authenticated by a custodian. Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337, 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (public records are inadmissible without a proper foundation for their introduction, even when referred to at trial by public officer); Jacksonville Elec. Auth. v. Department of Revenue, 486 So. 2d 1350, 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1…
-
Brown v. State, 537 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…d 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Records prepared by the probation department, may, with the showing of a proper predicate, be admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. § 90.803(6), Fla.Stat. (1987); Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). However, in this case, while the probation officer relied upon probation records, the state never introduced the records into evidence. Brown correctly contends that though hearsay evidence is admissible against a probationer in…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reeves v. State, 366 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- McCRARY v. State, 464 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)