E.C., A CHILD, 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.
E.C., a minor with a suspended delinquency commitment, appeals the revocation of his suspension after being suspended from school. The appellate court reversed, holding that the state failed to present competent, non-hearsay evidence to support the revocation.
The court held that the revocation must be reversed because the state failed to produce any competent, non-hearsay evidence to prove a violation. The case manager's oral testimony about what she was told constituted hearsay, and the school records were introduced without proper foundation or testimony from a qualifying witness such as a school official or records custodian.
[1] A suspended commitment may not be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence.
[2] While hearsay is admissible in revocation proceedings, proof of a violation must be supported by competent, non-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“While hearsay is admissible in revocation proceedings, proof of a violation must be supported by competent, non-hearsay evidence.”
Establishes the foundational principle that revocation hearings require non-hearsay evidence despite hearsay being technically admissible.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE.C. was adjudicated delinquent for battery, disorderly conduct, and interfering with lawful school administration, and received a suspended commitmen…
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 Business Records Exception To Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
E.C., a minor, appeals the revocation of his suspended commitment, claiming the trial court erred by basing the revocation solely on hearsay evidence. We agree and reverse.
E.C. had been adjudicated delinquent for battery, disorderly conduct and interfering with the lawful administration of an educational institution. As a result, E.C. was ordered committed to the custody of HRS, to complete 100 hours of community service, and to attend school without any unexcused absences, suspensions or improper conduct. The trial court, however, suspended that commitment.
On February 16, 1995, E.C.’s case manager, Michelle Keeling, filed a petition alleging E.C. violated a condition of his suspended commitment by being suspended from school. A revocation hearing was held at which Ms. Keeling testified for the state. Ms. Keeling stated that she had visited E.C.’s school to check his progress. While there, she was told that E.C. was having disciplinary problems that eventually led to his suspension. Ms. Keeling then produced school documents that verified the suspensions. E.C. objected to the production of those documents, claiming a hearsay violation. The court overruled the objection and admitted the documents. At the close of the evidence, the court revoked his suspended commitment based on his disciplinary problems and suspension from school, and sentenced him to a level six HRS program.
This court has consistently reversed the revocation of probations based solely on hearsay testimony. Arnold v. State, 497 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Combs v. State, 351 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). While hearsay is admissible in revocation proceedings, proof of a violation must be supported by competent, non-hearsay evidence. Arnold at 1357. Additionally, we have held that a probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. Combs, supra.
At bar, the record reveals the state failed to produce any non-hearsay evidence to prove a violation of E.C.’s suspended commitment. Ms. Keeling testified that she was told E.C. was suspended and introduced the school records for support. Ms. Keeling’s oral statements as to what she was told were clearly hearsay under section 90.802, Florida Statutes (1995). Additionally, the record does not show that the introduction of the school records was done in accordance with section 90.803, Florida Statutes (1995). A school official who either had personal knowledge of E.C.’s suspension, or who was a custodian of the records who could qualify them as a business record, in accordance with section 90.803(6), should have testified. We therefore find the state failed to intro duce non-hearsay evidence sufficient to prove E.C. violated his suspended commitment.
REVERSED.
SHAHOOD, J., and SPEISER, MARK A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 12 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ve words of testimony, offered to support counts I and II, were pure hearsay and not supported by competent, non-hearsay proof. This court has consistently held that probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. E.C. v. State, 675 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Count IV of the third amended affidavit for violation of probation alleged that Brown failed to report as directed “as of March 7, 2007.” The probation officer’s testimony regarding this alleged violation did not establish that…
-
A.J.D. v. State, 842 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…, even if the State moved to admit the school records as a business record exception, the probation officer was not the custodian of records nor was she qualified to testify as to the preparation or the reliability of the records. See E.C. v. State, 675 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(to have records admitted under the business record exception, school official who either had personal knowledge of defendant’s suspension or who was custodian of records should have testified); Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla…
-
B.S. v. State, 886 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…pending the state properly proceeding against appellant. REVERSED AND REMANDED. KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . The state offered only hearsay testimony as evidence of a violation. This was insufficient to find a violation. See E.C. v. State, 675 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(while hearsay testimony is admissible in suspended commitment revocation proceedings, proof of a violation of a condition of a juvenile’s suspended commitment must be supported by competent, non-hearsay evidence).…
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
- Combs v. State, 351 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Cary Arnold v. State, 497 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)