LINDSEY L. WILCHER, 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.
Lindsey Wilcher appealed the revocation of his probation, challenging the admission of a laboratory urine test showing cocaine use as violating the testimonial hearsay rule established in Crawford v. Washington. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation while certifying to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether Crawford applies in probation revocation proceedings.
The Crawford v. Washington testimonial hearsay rule does not apply in probation revocation proceedings, and therefore the laboratory urine test was properly admitted as a business record. The court affirmed the probation revocation order.
[1] The Sixth Amendment's testimonial hearsay rule, as interpreted in Crawford v. …
[2] Business records from an independent laboratory showing a positive drug test are admissible in probation revocation hearings.
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“Lindsey Leon Wilcher appeals the order revoking his probation, arguing that a urine report compiled by Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc., was erroneously entered into evidence as a business record.”
Establishes the nature of Wilcher's appeal and the specific evidentiary objection at issue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilcher was on probation and submitted to a urine test conducted by Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc., which reported a positive result for cocain…
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 Crawford V. Washington cases and more on FLexlaw
SAWAYA, J.
Lindsey Leon Wilcher appeals the order revoking his probation, arguing that a urine report compiled by Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc., was erroneously entered into evidence as a business record. Specifically, Wilcher argues that the admission of the urine test, which reported a positive result for cocaine, should not have been admitted over objection at his probation revocation hearing because it violated Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Precedent from this court and others tells us that Wilcher is wrong and directs that we affirm the order under review.
In Russell v. State, 920 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA) (affirming revocation of defendant’s probation based upon victim’s hearsay and officer’s testimony), review granted, 926 So. 2d 1270 (Fla.2006), we concluded that Crawford is inapplicable in probation revocation proceedings. Likewise, in Peters v. State, 919 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 924 So. 2d 809 (Fla.2006), the court affirmed the revocation of a defendant’s community control based upon business record evidence from an independent laboratory showing the defendant’s positive drug test. The court in Peters certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question whether the testimonial hearsay rule in Crawford applied in community control and/or probation revocation proceedings. Expressing agreement with Russell and Peters, the Fourth District Court, in Jackson v. State, 931 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), similarly held that Crawford is inapplicable in probation revocation proceedings and certified the same question as was certified in Peters.
Wilcher acknowledges that the cases we have cited are against him and lead to a result that provides him no relief, but asks this court to certify the question whether Crawford’s testimonial hearsay rule applies to probation and community control revocation proceedings. We grant that request and certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance:
DOES THE “TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY” RULE SET FORTH IN CRAWFORD V WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36 [124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177] (2004), APPLY IN COMMUNITY CONTROL AND/OR PROBATION REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS?
AFFIRMED; QUESTION CERTIFIED.
TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wolfe v. State, 963 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Wilcher v. State, 946 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). PALMER, C.J., MONACO and LAWSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Desmond Harris v. State, 969 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…n, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The attorney argued that the lab report was hearsay and testimonial in nature and its admission violated Harris’ [*569] Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. We affirm. In Wilcher v. State, 946 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), and Russell v. State, 920 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), rev. granted, 926 So. 2d 1270 (Fla.2006), we held that Crawford does not apply to probation revocation proceedings. Harris concedes that we have previously addressed the…
-
Hawthorne v. State, 953 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…himself, who the prosecutor claimed was too ill to appear in court. Aligning ourselves with our sister courts that have considered the issue, we hold that Crawford does not apply in community supervision revocation proceedings. See Wilcher v. State, 946 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Jackson v. State, 931 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Peters v. State, 919 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 924 So. 2d 809 (Fla.2006). Along with the First, Fourth, and Fifth districts, however, we certify the followi…
Authorities Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004)
- McDonough v. Cox, 924 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 2006)
- Peters v. State, 919 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Simons v. State, 926 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2006)
- Russell v. State, 920 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Jackson v. State, 931 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)