NEIL BUCHANAN, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in excluding proffered out-of-court statements as hearsay, as they were offered to show the defendant's intent, not the truth of the matter asserted.
[1] An out-of-court statement offered to show the declarant's state of mind or to explain the defendant's actions is not hearsay if it is not offered to prove the truth of th…
[2] A defendant's intent is a material issue in a burglary prosecution.
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 intelligenceNeil Buchanan was convicted of burglary and petit theft after being found with items stolen from a mobile home. His defense was that he was retrieving…
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 Burglary Of A Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Neil Buchanan appeals his convictions for burglary of a dwelling1 and petit theft.2 He challenges the trial court’s refusal to allow the introduction into evidence of a proffered out-of-court statement. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
These convictions arose out of the alleged burglary, on September 12, 1997, of a mobile home from which several items were removed. The items included a pocketknife; a model airplane; a BB gun; two martial arts knives; a picture frame containing four one dollar bills and a two dollar bill; a silver necklace embellished with feathers, a charm, and a green stone; and a cowboy hat. Buchanan was arrested outside the mobile home carrying the model airplane, and his codefendant, Joseph Henry, was arrested wearing the hat and carrying at least a portion of the other items. At trial, the occupant of the mobile home, Miguel Nava, testified that the items which were taken belonged to him. He acknowledged, however, that he and another individual, Alicia Boseman, had previously resided together at the mobile home but that Ms. Boseman had moved out several months prior to the date of the alleged burglary.
In his own defense, Buchanan testified that he and Henry had gone into the mobile home to procure property which Ms. Boseman had told Buchanan was her property or that of her children. When asked about the kind of property, Buchanan testified that Ms. Boseman had “explained that she had her purse, kids[’] diaper bag, apparently toys, a few toys, that airplane being the main toy for the oldest boy.” Ms. Boseman had also told him where she had hidden some jewelry and money, but when he looked in the hiding place, the jewelry and money were not found and her purse had been emptied. He testified that, at the time Ms. Boseman asked him to get the property for her, “she said it was their house and that she paid half the rent.”
Significantly, Ms. Boseman was not at the trial to testify. The defense proffered the testimony of another witness, Nancy Whitlock, who stated that prior to the alleged burglary she had heard Ms. Bose-man tell Buchanan that Ms. Boseman “and her boyfriend had broken up, and that she was afraid to go and get her stuff from there. He [Mr. Nava] had her kids’ toys and things like that.” Ms. Whitlock continued, “[s]o Alicia [Boseman] asked Mr. Buchanan if he would go to the trailer to remove her stuff and her kids’ toys.” The trial court found that the proffered statement was hearsay and refused its admission.
Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. See § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997). If testimony is offered for a purpose other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted, it is not hearsay. See State v. Baird, 572 So. 2d 904 (Fla.1990). The hearsay objection is unavailing when the inquiry is not as to the truth of the words spoken, but merely as to whether they were in fact spoken. See Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1982).
Ms. Boseman’s statements, proffered through Ms. Whitlock, were not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that the property actually belonged to Ms. Boseman. Rather, the statements were offered to demonstrate that Buchanan, having been told by Ms. Boseman that the items were her personal property, did not possess the requisite intent to knowingly deprive Mr. Nava of a right to the property or a benefit therefrom. Furthermore, Buchanan’s intent was a material issue in this case. Thus, the finding that the statement was hearsay was erroneous, and the trial court’s refusal to admit the evidence was an abuse of its discretion.
In the present case, the exclusion of the proffered statement was prejudicial. Ms. Boseman’s out-of-court statements were essential to Buchanan’s theory of defense, especially since Ms. Boseman could not be located and was, thus, unavailable to testify. The statements were probative of Buchanan’s claim that at the time of entering the structure he did not have the intent to commit theft but had the understanding that he was entering the mobile home to recover property which he had permission to retrieve. The statement was the only evidence corroborating Buchanan’s claim offered by someone other than Buchanan or his codefendant.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur. . § 810.02, Fla. Slat. (1997).
. § 812.014, Fla. Slat. (1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorsey v. Karan Gaddam Reddy, M.D., 931 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…s, 400 U.S. 74, 88, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970)); Diaz, 890 So. 2d at 558. Out-of-court statements are hearsay only if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Breedlove, 413 So. 2d at 6; Diaz, 890 So. 2d at 558; Buchanan v. State, 743 So. 2d 59, 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). “The hearsay objection is unavailing when the inquiry is not directed to the truth of the words spoken, but, rather, to whether they were in fact spoken.” Breedlove, 413 So. 2d at 6 (citation omitted); Buchanan, 743 So. 2d at…
-
White v. State, 993 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…it was not offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted”—that appellant’s neighbor had been given the generator in return for work done. It was, instead, offered to negate an essential element of both offenses—intent. E.g., Buchanan v. State, 743 So. 2d 59, 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); King v. State, 684 So. 2d 1388, 1389-90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Sibley v. State, 636 So. 2d 893, 894 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Duncan v. State, 616 So. 2d 140, 141-42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Because the proffered testimony clearly relat…
-
North v. State, 221 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…ather what the effect of hearing that statement had on the defendant to explain his subsequent conduct). In that light, the alleged email statements concerning Mr. North’s permission to sell the scrap were simply not hearsay.2 See Buchanan v. State, 743 So. 2d 59, 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that trial court erred in excluding as hearsay proffered statements that defendant accused of theft had been told by a woman to retrieve her property, as the testimony was not presented for the truth of the matter ass…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- State v. Baird, 572 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1990)
- McArthur Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)