ELIJAH YOUNG, 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.
Young appealed his probation revocation, challenging whether the trial court could revoke probation based primarily on hearsay testimony from an investigating officer recounting the victim's account of a hostile contact incident. The court affirmed, holding that hearsay evidence supported by corroborating direct evidence—here, the officer's observations of the victim's injuries and appearance, plus photographs—can sustain a probation violation finding.
The court affirmed the probation revocation, holding that hearsay evidence can support a probation violation finding when accompanied by direct corroborating evidence, such as the officer's firsthand observations of the victim's appearance and condition, plus photographic evidence of injuries.
[1] Hearsay evidence, when corroborated by direct evidence, may support a finding of probation violation.
[2] Photographs of injuries and direct observations by an investigating officer can corroborate hearsay testimony in a probation violation hearing.
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“although hearsay is admissible at a violation of probation hearing, it is error to revoke probation solely based on hearsay”
States the legal principle Young relied upon, establishing that some corroborating evidence beyond hearsay is necessary
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYoung was accused of making hostile contact with the victim, White. An investigating officer testified based on hearsay—what White had told the office…
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 Excited Utterance Exception To Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
The issue on this appeal is whether the trial court could properly find that the appellant, Young, violated his probation by making hostile contact with the victim, White, when that finding was based on the hearsay testimony of an investigating officer to whom White related her version of the incident and on supporting photographs showing the injuries to White.
Young contends on appeal that although hearsay is admissible at a violation of probation hearing, it is error to revoke probation solely based on hearsay, citing several cases for that proposition. See, e.g., Purvis v. State, 397 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The state’s response to this argument is that hearsay evidence supported by direct evidence can sustain a finding of probation violation; here, in addition to the hearsay, there were photographs of the injuries to White as well as the direct testimony by the officer as to her observations.1
In Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) we upheld the trial court’s revocation of probation which was predicated upon the hearsay testimony of investigating officers as to what had been told to them by a mother and daughter at the scene of a domestic violence incident as well as upon the direct testimony of the officers as to what they observed at the scene: broken glass and shelves evidencing a struggle; a bruise and bite mark on the victim mother; the distraught appearance of both mother and daughter; and the belligerent attitude of the defendant at the scene.
In the instant case the hearsay testimony was supported by the officer’s description of the distraught appearance of the victim when the officer responded to a 911 call; the officer described the physical appearance of the victim’s wounds to her arm and mouth; and photographs of the victim’s wounds were introduced into evidence. Morris is directly on point and is dispositive.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . The state also argues that the officer's testimony as to what White had told her constituted an exception to the hearsay rule as an "excited utterance” pursuant to section 90.803(2), Florida Statutes (1997). The trial court made no such finding, however, and we therefore reject this argument by the slate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Russell v. State, 982 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2008)…ury was sufficient to corroborate a battery victim’s testimonial hearsay statement and that probation was properly revoked. In doing so, the Fifth District followed its decisions in Arndt v. State, 815 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), Young v. State, 742 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), and Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The Fifth District in all three cases held that the investigating officer’s hearsay testimony coupled with his testimony [*647] concerning his direct observation of the vi…
-
Stoll v. State, 762 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2000)…of “[w]hether the necessary state'of mind is present is a preliminary fact for the court to determine pursuant to Section 90.104.” Jano, 524 So. 2d at 661 (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 803.2 (2d ed.1984)); see also Young v. State, 742 So. 2d 418, 419 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), review denied, 751 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2000). At trial, the State never asserted that Julie Stoll’s statements were excited utterances, nor did the trial court ever make a factual finding to support this assertion. More…
-
Blair v. State, 805 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…’s alleged commission of a battery, the State argues that the deputy’s observations and her testimony regarding statements made by the victim constitute sufficient evidence of a violation of probation. The State relies primarily upon Young v. State, 742 So. 2d 418 (Pla. 5th DCA 1999), and Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). We cannot agree with the State’s conclusions. In Morris, hearsay evidence was supported by the independent observations of the deputies. The deputies responded to a 911 c…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Purvis v. State, 397 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)