A.S., 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.
A.S. was charged with felony criminal mischief for allegedly causing $2,600 in damage to a car. The trial court admitted testimony about the damage estimate's contents without admitting the estimate itself into evidence. The appellate court reversed, holding that such testimony violated the hearsay rule and that without competent evidence of value, the felony charge cannot stand.
The court held that the business-records hearsay exception does not authorize testimony concerning the contents of business records that have not been admitted into evidence. Without admission of the actual estimate, the testimony about its contents should have been stricken, and without this evidence, there is insufficient evidence of the value element required for felony criminal mischief.
[1] Testimony concerning the contents of business records is inadmissible hearsay if the records themselves have not been admitted into evidence.
[2] The business-records exception to the hearsay rule requires the admission of the record itself, not merely testimony about its contents.
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“the business-records exception to the hearsay rule ... does not authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence.”
Establishes the core holding that testimony about unintroduced business records violates the 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 intelligenceA.S. was charged with felony criminal mischief valued at $1,000 or more. The State alleged she caused $2,600 in damage to a car. The owner of an auto …
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 Felony Criminal Mischief cases and more on FLexlaw
A.S. was charged with felony criminal mischief valued at $1000 or more; the State alleged that she caused $2600 in damage to a car. The owner of an auto body shop testified to the value of the damage, basing it on an estimate made by one of his employees in the regular course of business. Because this estimate was never admitted into evidence, A.S. requested that the testimony be stricken from the record as it was hearsay. The trial court refused to strike the testimony. We reverse and remand, having determined there was insufficient evidence to prove felony criminal mischief.
Section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes (2003) provides a hearsay exception for records of regularly conducted business activity. However, “the business-records exception to the hearsay rule ... does not authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence.” Thompson v. State, 705 So.2d 1046, 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (emphasis added).
In the instant case, the estimate itself would have qualified as a business record; however, the testimony explaining the contents of the estimate would not fall within this exception. See Sunshine Chevrolet Oldsmobile v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 910 So.2d 948, 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (explaining that testimony of a custodian is “the predicate necessary to admit the [documents] as a business record exception to the hearsay rule”). Because the actual estimate was not admitted into evidence, the testimony concerning its contents should have been stricken. Without this evidence, the record does not provide competent, substantial evidence demonstrating the essential element of value.1 Therefore, we reverse the lower court’s decision and remand to reduce A.S.’s “conviction of felony criminal mischief to the lesser offense of second-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief as defined in section 806.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2006)” in accordance with Marrero v. State, 71 So.3d 881, 891 (Fla.2011). A.S. is entitled to a new disposition hearing. Clark v. State, 746 So.2d 1237, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Reversed and Remanded.
WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881 (Fla. 2011)
- Demitri Thompson v. State, 705 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Clark v. State, 746 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Sunshine Chevrolet Oldsmobile v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Zahid N. Roy, 910 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)