ROBERT SCHAFFER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Robert Schaffer appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit burglary, breaking and entering, and robbery, challenging the admission of testimony regarding a floor plan diagram that was no longer available. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that testimony about the diagram's contents did not violate the best evidence rule because the diagram was collateral evidence and unavailable.
The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in admitting secondary evidence regarding the unavailable diagram. The best evidence rule did not apply because the diagram's contents were collateral and not material in issue; the existence of the diagram was merely cumulative evidence of the conspiracy.
[1] Parol testimony concerning the contents of a document is admissible when the original document is unavailable, provided the unavailability is not due to the fault of the…
[2] Testimony regarding the contents of a document is admissible when the document's contents are merely collateral to the main issues of the case.
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“where the document or its contents are merely collateral, parol testimony referring thereto is not necessarily incompetent”
Establishes that the best evidence rule does not apply when the document is collateral to the matter in issue, permitting secondary evidence about the diagram
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchaffer was convicted in a single trial of conspiracy to commit felony burglary, breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny…
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 Admissibility Of Secondary Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is by the defendant below from conviction in a single trial of conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit: burglary, breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny, and robbery.
The appellant presents two points on appeal. The first is a contention the trial court committed reversible error by allowing, over objection, testimony of alleged co-conspirators with reference to a drawing which had been prepared by one of them showing the floor plan of the premises to be robbed and indicating places therein of certain items. Second, the appellant contends the court erred in denying his motion for new trial predicated on the ground just mentioned.
In addition to other evidence submitted to establish the alleged conspiracy, one of the persons involved in the conspiracy who was presented as a witness for the state, testified that such a diagram had been made on a legal size sheet of paper, and testified to its contents to the extent of a general statement that it showed a floor plan of the residence and indicated location of items therein which were to be taken. It was further testified that the diagram no longer was available because it, and some copies which were made had been discarded after the transaction. The appellant argues that where the diagram was not produced, the allowance of such testimony relating to it was error in that it was a violation of the best evidence rule.
The state has presented sound arguments against that contention. First, the state submits that the admission of secondary evidence relating to the diagram was authorized by reason of the unavailability of the original, and that the reason for its unavailability, under the circumstances, was not such as to preclude the use of the secondary evidence. Second, the state cites Hancock v. State, 90 Fla. 178, 105 So. 401, holding that where the document or its contents are merely collateral, parol testimony referring thereto is not necessarily incompetent. Here, the contents of the diagram were not in issue or material, and the fact of the existence of such a diagram was only cumulative evidence of the conspiracy.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.