SAMUEL WILLIAMS, 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.
Samuel Williams appeals the revocation of his probation based solely on a positive drug test report. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and quashed the revocation order, holding that hearsay evidence alone—without proper authentication or exception—cannot support a probation violation finding.
No. While hearsay evidence may be admissible at revocation hearings, it alone cannot be the sole basis for finding a probation violation. A lab test report standing alone is hearsay that cannot support revocation unless properly authenticated under an exception to the hearsay rule, such as the business records exception.
[1] Hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to prove a violation of probation.
[2] A laboratory test report, standing alone, constitutes hearsay and cannot be the sole basis for revoking probation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Clearly, the lab test report, standing alone, is hearsay. Although it may be admitted at a revocation hearing, it alone cannot be the basis to find a violation.”
Establishes the core holding that hearsay evidence cannot be the sole basis 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 intelligenceWilliams was on probation with a condition prohibiting intoxicant use or visiting places where intoxicants and drugs are sold or used. A random urinal…
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 Chain Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Williams appeals from an order revoking his probation and the imposition of two concurrent sentences of thirty months for his prior convictions.1 He argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation solely on the basis of hearsay evidence, which would not have been admissible at a trial. We agree and quash the order and sentences.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. Condition six of Williams’ probation required:
6. You will not use intoxicants; nor will you visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous substances are sold, dispensed or used.
A urinalysis test taken from Williams at random, pursuant to his probation supervision, proved positive for cocaine and cannabis. Based on the positive lab report, Williams’ probation officer filed his violation affidavit.
At the revocation hearing, the probation officer testified he witnessed the obtaining of the urine sample from Williams and the chain of custody of the sample until it was delivered to the Smith Kline Laboratory. The state then sought to introduce into evidence the lab test results which the probation officer had received from Smith Kline. No other witness who could authenticate the lab test, or who performed the test, was offered by the state.
The court admitted the lab test results into evidence over defense counsel’s objection that they constituted hearsay and were not properly authenticated. Defense counsel also argued that even though hearsay evidence is admissible at revocation hearings, such evidence alone is insufficient to prove a violation of probation.
Clearly, the lab test report, standing alone, is hearsay. Although it may be admitted at a revocation hearing, it alone cannot be the basis to find a violation. Purvis v. State, 397 So. 2d 746, 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Johnson v. State, 378 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Clark’s chain of custody testimony as to the sample is not sufficient to remove the lab test result (performed by another person in another city) from the category of hearsay, normally inadmissible in evidence at trial. This case is different from Young v. State, 519 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), quashed on other grounds, sub nom., Hamilton v. State, 548 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1989), and Hayes v. State, 345 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), because in those cases, in addition to the lab tests, police officers testified they made positive field tests on the illegal substances seized at the time of the arrests. The lab tests were not the only evidence of the violations in Young and Hayes.
Lab tests or other kinds of hearsay evidence may be admissible pursuant to various exceptions to the hearsay rule. See, e.g., § 90.803(6), Fla.Stat. (1987). In such a case, evidence properly admitted pursuant to such an exception, could sustain an order revoking probation. See Walker v. State, 426 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).2 However, as the record in this case demonstrates, no effort was made to authenticate the lab report as a business record; nor was any other exception to the general rule excluding hearsay evidence established.
Accordingly, we quash the order of revocation and the judgment and sentences imposed.
REVERSED.
DANIEL, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. . Forgery; section 831.01, Florida Statutes (1987); uttering a false or forged instrument, section 831.02, Florida Statutes (1987).
. See also Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peters v. State, 984 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2008)…lated Peters’ right to confrontation under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Defense counsel also objected on the ground that under Monroe v. State, 679 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and Williams v. State, 553 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), the report constituted hearsay, which cannot form the sole basis for finding a violation of community supervision. In turn, the State argued that the report was admissible as a business record. The circuit court found Peters gui…
-
Davis v. State, 562 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…88). Id. at 1359, 1360.1 Moreover, in a probation revocation case wherein the defendant was accused of possessing cocaine and cannabis on the basis of a lab report containing the results of a urinalysis test, our sister court in Williams v. State, 553 So. 2d 365, 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) stated: Lab tests or other kinds of hearsay evidence may be admissible pursuant to various exceptions to the hearsay rule. See e.g., § 90.803(6), Fla.Stat. (1987). In such a case, evidence properly admitted pursuant to such…
-
Peters v. State, 919 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ten results of PharmChem’s analysis on grounds that the admission of the results violated appellant’s right to confrontation as set forth in Crawford and because under Monroe v. [*626] State, 679 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and Williams v. State, 553 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), hearsay evidence cannot form the sole basis for a finding of a violation of community supervision.2 No objection was raised concerning any failure by the State to comply with the statute setting forth the requirements for admiss…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bernhine W. Young v. State, 519 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Hamilton v. State, 548 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1989)
- Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Purvis v. State, 397 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Johnson v. State, 378 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Walker v. State, 426 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Hayes v. State, 345 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Perrin v. SAM Kaye, Inc., 345 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)