DEMETRICE ARMICLE MCNEAL, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction over a case involving the past recollection recorded hearsay exception and quashed the First District Court of Appeal's decision, remanding for reconsideration in light of the Court's decision in Polite v. State, which established that the exception requires the witness to attest to the accuracy of the memorandum at trial.
The past recollection recorded exception requires the witness to indicate that events were fresh in their mind when the statement was made and to attest to the accuracy of the memorandum or record. The district court's harmless error analysis was improper and must be reconsidered under the correct standard from State v. DiGuilio.
[1] The past recollection recorded exception to hearsay requires the witness to attest that the events were fresh in their mind when the statement was made and that the memor…
[2] Satisfying the foundational requirements for the past recollection recorded exception to hearsay does not necessarily require the declarant's testimony.
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 past recollection recorded exception requires the witness to indicate that the events were fresh in his or her mind when the statement was made, as well as attest to the accuracy of the memorandum or record”
Establishes the holding that the witness must testify to the accuracy of the memorandum at trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcNeal involved victims whose written statements were admitted into evidence at trial. Unlike the Polite case, which was pending before the Florida Su…
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 State V. Diguilio Harmless Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review McNeal v. State, 109 So.3d 268, 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), in which the First District Court of Appeal found that satisfying the foundational requirements under the past recollection recorded exception to hearsay need not come from the declarant’s testimony.1 At the time that the First District issued its decision below, Polite v. State, 41 So.3d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), quashed, 116 So.3d 270 (Fla.2013), was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Polite, in which we held that the past recollection recorded exception requires the witness to indicate that the events were fresh in his or her mind when the statement was made, as well as attest to the accuracy of the memorandum or record. Polite v. State, 116 So.3d 270, 278 (Fla.2013). We then issued an order in the instant case directing Respondent to show cause why this Court should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the First District’s decision in McNeal, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Polite. Respondent filed a response acknowledging that the victims in both the instant case and in Polite did not vouch at trial for the accuracy or correctness of their written statements. Respondent contends, however, that this Court should decline to accept jurisdiction because the district court below found that even if the publishing of the statement was error, it was harmless. Petitioner filed a reply, asserting that the decision below should be quashed and that we should remand because the district court applied an incorrect standard in finding that the error was harmless.
*992Upon consideration of the Respondent’s response, and Petitioner’s reply thereto, we grant the petition for review, , quash the district court’s decision in McNeal, and remand this case to the First District for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decision in Polite, and a proper harmless error analysis under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986), if applicable.
It is so ordered.
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
CANADY, J., concurs in result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Demetrice Armicle McNEAL v. State, 143 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. In McNeal v. State, 140 So. 3d 991 (Fla.2014), the Florida Supreme Court quashed this court’s opinion in McNeal v. State, 109 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), to the extent it affirmed the trial court’s decision to allow the State to publish the Victim’s handwritten statement pursuant…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Darius Jamine Polite v. State, 116 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 2013)
- Darius Jamine Polite v. State, 41 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Demetrice Armicle McNEAL v. State, 109 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)