WILLIAM LESLIE THOMAS, 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.
William Leslie Thomas was convicted of tampering with evidence and possession of cocaine after police found a substance in his mouth that tested positive for cocaine on his denture. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction because the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony from a passenger to impeach the defendant's credibility, violating the hearsay rules.
The trial court erred in admitting the passenger's hearsay statements because Florida Statute § 90.806(1) does not authorize testimony about what a non-testifying declarant told the officer, even when offered to impeach the defendant's credibility on a collateral issue.
[1] Hearsay testimony from a non-testifying witness regarding statements made by another non-testifying declarant is inadmissible, even if offered to impeach the defendant's…
[2] A statute governing the impeachment of a hearsay declarant's credibility does not authorize the admission of hearsay testimony from another non-testifying declarant.
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“We find nothing in section 90.806(1) which would authorize the officer to testify as to what the passenger told him. Section 90.806(1) provides that where a hearsay statement is admitted into evidence, the credibility of the non-testifying declarant can be impeached by the same methods as if the declarant had testified.”
The court's core holding explaining why the passenger's hearsay statements were inadmissible under Florida's hearsay rule
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter observing appellant driving erratically, an officer followed him into a parking lot and noticed alcohol on his breath. The appellant denied drin…
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 Credibility cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant was convicted of tampering with evidence and possession of cocaine. We reverse for a new trial because the court erred in allowing the arresting offi cer to testify as to hearsay statements made by a passenger in appellant’s ear. The officer testified that after observing appellant driving erratically, he followed appellant into a parking lot and noticed the smell of alcohol on his breath, but that appellant denied that he had been drinking. The officer then saw something in appellant’s mouth which looked like crack cocaine and asked appellant to remove his denture. Appellant complied, but the officer was unable to stop appellant from swallowing the substance. The denture tested positive for cocaine.
At appellant’s trial, the officer testified that when he initially questioned appellant, appellant told him he had just come from a wedding and had not been drinking. The officer was then allowed to testify, over appellant’s objection, that the passenger in appellant’s car told him that appellant had been drinking, that they had just come from a park, and that appellant had spoken to a black man in the park. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing the officer to testify as to the hearsay statements of the passenger, who did not testify.
The state responds that the testimony was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule in order to impeach appellant’s statement to the officer that he had not been drinking, citing section 90.806(1), Florida Statutes (1999). We find nothing in section 90.806(1) which would authorize the officer to testify as to what the passenger told him. Section 90.806(1) provides that where a hearsay statement is admitted into evidence, the credibility of the non-testifying declarant can be impeached by the same methods as if the declarant had testified. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 90.806.1 (1999 Edition). The statute does not authorize the admissibility of the hearsay testimony of another non-testifying declarant, such as the passenger. Nor can we agree with the state that, because the issue of whether appellant had been drinking was collateral, it was harmless. It went to appellant’s credibility as to his denial to the officer that the substance in his mouth was cocaine, the key issue in a close case. We therefore reverse for a new trial.
FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.