MARK JOHN YOUNG, 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.
Mark John Young appeals his aggravated battery conviction, arguing the trial court reversibly erred by admitting hearsay evidence that a third party (not testifying) inflicted Young's facial wound, thereby contradicting Young's self-defense claim that the complainant caused it with a pipe. The court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding the hearsay inadmissible and highly prejudicial.
The court held that the hearsay statement was totally inadmissible under Florida law, failed to qualify for any hearsay exception, and was enormously prejudicial to the defendant's self-defense claim and therefore not harmless error.
[1] The admission of a highly prejudicial hearsay statement made by a non-testifying third party over objection constitutes reversible error.
[2] Hearsay evidence that does not qualify for admission under any exception is inadmissible.
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“Plainly, the above statement was totally inadmissible in evidence as it constituted hearsay evidence and failed to qualify for admission under any exception to the general rule excluding hearsay evidence.”
Establishes the court's core holding that Isaac's statement was inadmissible hearsay with no applicable exception.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYoung stabbed the complainant in alleged self-defense after the complainant struck Young in the face with a pipe. Young had a large gash on his face c…
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 Failure To Call Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Mark John Young from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for aggravated battery which was entered below based on an adverse jury verdict. We reverse and remand for a new trial based on a holding that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting in evidence, over objection, a highly prejudicial hearsay statement made to a police officer by a non-testifying third party.
The defendant testified in this case that he stabbed the complainant with a knife in self defense after the complainant had struck the defendant in the face with a pipe. Officer Lopez of the City of Miami Police Department arrested the defendant on the same day as the alleged incident; the defendant had a large gash on his face, which gash was consistent with the defendant’s testimony that he had been struck in the face by the complainant with a pipe. To offset this highly unfavorable evidence, the state elicited from Officer Lopez, over objection, that in the course of his investigation he had a conversation with a man named Isaac who, in turn, made a certain statement to Officer Lopez concerning the gash on the defendant’s face. In this hearsay statement, Isaac, who never testified below, claimed that he had a fight with the defendant after the defendant’s fight with the complainant, and that Isaac had inflicted the gash on the defendant’s face.
Plainly, the above statement was totally inadmissible in evidence as it constituted hearsay evidence and failed to qualify for admission under any exception to the general rule excluding hearsay evidence. State v. Baird, 572 So. 2d 904 (Fla.1990); Harris v. State, 544 So. 2d 322 (Fla.4th DCA 1989); Haynes v. State, 502 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1989). Moreover, it was enormously prejudicial to the defendant’s claim of self-defense below and cannot be said to be harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
As there will have to be a new trial in this case, we will address two other points raised by the defendant which may arise upon retrial. We think the defendant may properly comment on the failure of the state to call, as a witness at trial, an eyewitness to the altercation between the complainant and the defendant, namely, the complainant's friend named Austin. Martinez v. State, 478 So. 2d 871 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1986); Simmons v. State, 463 So. 2d 423 (Fla.3d DCA 1985); Kindell v. State, 413 So. 2d 1283, 1288 (Fla.3d DCA 1982) (Daniel S. Pearson, J., concurring).
Moreover, the state may not introduce testimony that the defendant has a reputation for violence in the community unless the defendant places his character in issue by calling witnesses who attest to the defendant's good reputation in the community, Dixon v. State, 426 So. 2d 1258 (Fla.2d DCA 1983); Wilt v. State, 410 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); § 90.404(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989); the state may not, in any event, introduce reputation testimony through an investigating police officer. Parker v. State, 458 So. 2d 750, 753-54 (Fla.1984), cert, denied, 470 U.S. 1088, 105 S.Ct. 1855, 85 L.Ed.2d 152 (1985); Stripling v. State, 349 So. 2d 187, 192 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert, denied, 359 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.1978).
Although neither of these points rise to the level of reversible error, especially the character evidence point as the offending evidence was not objected to by the defendant, we trust that such errors will not be repeated upon retrial.
The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RAY v. State, 755 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2000)…asserted — that Hall coerced Whitney into committing a crime with Hall in 1984. All of Whitney’s “evidence” of this fact were hearsay statements from the third cofelon. This evidence was properly not admitted by the trial court. See Young v. State, 598 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Ray next challenges the trial court’s denial of his request to introduce evidence of his low I.Q. The trial court correctly determined that this evidence was inadmissible during the guilt phase of [*611] trial. Testimony regardi…
-
T.S. v. State, 623 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ions to the hearsay rule apply. See § 90.803, Fla.Stat. (1991). Out-of-court statements made by a third party to an investigator about a matter relevant to the investigation is inadmissible hearsay unless a hearsay exception applies. Young v. State, 598 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The third statement also is hearsay. The alleged victim testified at trial. She admitted that she told a child protection team member that T.S. had sex with her. The alleged victim said that she was lying when she made that sta…
-
Dean v. State, 843 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ial position to be allowed to testify in this respect. See Parker v. State, 458 So. 2d 750, 753-54 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1088, 105 S.Ct. 1855, 85 L.Ed.2d 152 (1985); Garcia v. Konckier, 771 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Young v. State, 598 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Wolack v. State, 464 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), pet. for rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 676 (Fla.1985); Stripling; see also State v. Johnson, 540 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Although the admission of the reputation testimony o…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Baird, 572 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1990)
- Parker v. State, 458 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1984)
- Bartelmy Harris v. State, 544 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Stripling v. State, 349 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Martinez v. State, 478 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Kindell v. State, 413 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Finney v. Georgia, 470 U.S. 1088 (U.S. 1985)
- Thomas v. Maryland, 470 U.S. 1088 (U.S. 1985)
- Dixon v. State, 426 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)