A.J.A., 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.
The court held that a repair estimate alone, when objected to as hearsay, is insufficient to prove the cost of repairs for a restitution order.
[1] A repair estimate, when objected to as hearsay, is inadmissible to prove the cost of repairs for restitution purposes.
[2] The State bears the burden of proving the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence.
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 intelligenceAppellant damaged a victim's car bumper during an attempted robbery. The State sought restitution for the repairs based solely on a repair estimate, o…
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 Hearsay Objection cases and more on FLexlaw
A.J.A., a child, appeals the portion of the order of restitution that requires him to pay the victim for repairs to the victim’s car bumper, which was damaged by bullets flying through the air during an attempt by Appellant and other juveniles to rob the victim.1 Appellant made a timely hearsay objection when the State attempt*640ed to prove the cost of that repair based only upon a repair estimate. The victim testified that he received the estimate, but could not otherwise provide a basis for the estimate’s admissibility. The trial court erred in overruling the hearsay objection and further erred in relying upon the estimate as the only evidence upon which to base that portion of the restitution order. The State concedes error. We reverse that portion of the restitution order and remand for a new hearing on that issue.
The burden of proving the amount of restitution is on the State, and the amount must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2016); Santana v. State, 795 So.2d 1112, 1113 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Restitution must be proven by substantial competent evidence. J.L.C. v. State, 189 So.3d 260, 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Repair estimates have been held to be hearsay and cannot support a restitution award if an objection is lodged. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 850 So.2d 627, 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“The trial court’s restitution award was [improperly] based on these two estimates, which were purely hearsay.”).
The case is remanded for a new restitution hearing, in which the State may be able to establish the cost of repair by presenting admissible competent substantial evidence. In all other respects, the order of restitution is affirmed. We acknowledge and appreciate the professionalism with which counsel on both sides addressed the sole issue on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for rehearing.
SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haynes v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…stimated cost of repairs to damaged property is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, it is hearsay unless made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing.” (internal quotations omitted)). In A.J.A. v. State, 215 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), this Court held that it was error for the trial court to rely upon a repair estimate as the only evidence upon which to base that portion of the restitution order. Here, the only testimony Oehlerking could provide was that the r…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 850 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Santana v. State, 795 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- J.L.C. v. State, 189 So. 3d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)