MARY MEDLOCK, 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.
Mary Medlock was convicted of grand theft based on unauthorized withdrawals from a bank account using another person's ATM card. The appellate court reversed her conviction because the trial court improperly admitted a bank statement as evidence without the required foundation testimony from a bank records custodian, violating the business records exception to the hearsay rule under Florida law.
A bank statement is inadmissible hearsay without testimony from the records custodian or other qualified person employed by the bank to establish the predicate requirements of the business records exception. The admission of the bank statement in this case, which was the primary evidence of theft, constituted reversible error requiring reversal of the conviction.
[1] A bank statement is inadmissible as hearsay when offered under the business records exception without the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness to establi…
[2] The business records exception to the hearsay rule requires a showing that the record was made at or near the time of the event by a person with knowledge, kept in the re…
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“all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for foundation testimony before business records are admissible under the hearsay exception
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMedlock was charged with grand theft for allegedly withdrawing money from a bank ATM using a bank card belonging to Karen Garrison, who had allowed Me…
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 Predicate For Admission Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Medlock appeals a court order finding her guilty of grand theft and imposing a probationary term. We reverse.
Medlock’s theft charge resulted from Medlock allegedly taking money from a bank money machine. The money was obtained by utilizing, without permission, a bank money card belonging to a Karen Garrison, a person who had allowed Med-lock to live in Garrison’s home.
In order for the state to prove the unauthorized withdrawals, and over a defense hearsay objection, the trial court admitted Garrison’s bank statement without the testimony of the custodian of the bank records. The trial court stated that the statement was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay doctrine. We disagree.
Section 90.803, Florida Statutes (1987) states:
The provision of s. 90.802 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(6) Records of Regularly Conducted Business Activity.
(a) A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinion, or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make such memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness. The term “business” as used in this paragraph includes a business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.
§ 90.803(6)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987) (emphasis added). This statute clearly required the records custodian or other qualified person employed by the bank to testify regarding the necessary predicate before the bank statement could be admitted into evidence. Without that foundation, the evidence is inadmissible as hearsay. Dietz v. State, 534 So. 2d 808, (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
Since the state relied upon Garrison’s bank statement as the primary, if not the sole, evidence of the theft, we find the admission of the statement to be reversible error. See Quick v. State, 450 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Reversed with directions for the trial court to discharge Medlock.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Demitri Thompson v. State, 705 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…idence of the fact of a theft and the sole evidence of the value of the missing goods, we conclude that the erroneous admission of this testimony was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See § 924.051(7), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996); Medlock v. State, 537 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)(reversing a theft conviction where improperly admitted business records were “the primary, if not the sole, evidence of the theft”). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction for grand theft and remand for a new trial. REVER…
-
McKOWN v. State, 46 So. 3d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…requires that the records custodian or other qualified bank employee testify to the necessary predicate before bank statements may be admitted into evidence. Without laying that foundation, the evidence is inadmissible hearsay. See Medlock v. State, 537 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (bank statements offered to prove the defendant’s unauthorized withdrawals were inadmissible hearsay without the testimony of the records custodian regarding the necessary predicate). “Hearsay evidence may not be used to determine…
-
Dreyer v. State, 46 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…e State, and she did not have the requisite knowledge to establish the proper foundation for the admission of the financial statements under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. See § 90.803(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008); Medlock v. State, 537 So. 2d 1030, 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (“[Section 90.803(6)(a) ] clearly require[s] the records custodian or other qualified person employed by the bank to testify regarding the necessary predicate before the bank statement could be admitted into evidence. Withou…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dietz v. State, 534 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Daimler v. Daimler, 450 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)