RICKY D. FRANKLIN, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, ANNIE BAXTER, PETITIONER,
v.
DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF HENDRY COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 2d DCA | 1978-03-29
No. 77-1888
OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
356 So. 2d 931 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1978) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

Hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to support a school board's expulsion order.


Facts & Procedural History

A student was expelled based on hearsay evidence, including affidavits from the alleged victim and testimony from school officials about what the vict…

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.


Opinion of the Court
BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.

BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.

Petitioner, Ricky Franklin, petitions for writ of certiorari to review his expulsion from high school by respondent, District School Board of Hendry County. He contends that all of the evidence both written and oral upon which the order of expulsion was based was hearsay and, therefore, insufficient to support the school board’s action. We agree and reverse.

The evidence tending to show petitioner’s guilt of the two acts upon which his expulsion was based consisted only of affidavits of the alleged student/victim and the testimony of the school principal and vice principal concerning what this student told them. No witness to the acts concerned testified nor did petitioner admit having committed either of the acts.

School expulsion proceedings are governed by Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1975). See Section 230.23(6)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1976). Section 120.58, applicable to proceedings under Section 120.57, provides in pertinent part: “Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.” Clearly, all of the evidence introduced against petitioner constituted hearsay inadmissible over objection in a civil action. Accordingly, we must conclude that while admissible at the expulsion hearing, the hearsay standing alone was insufficient evidence upon which to predicate the order expelling petitioner. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …, or parts of it. In view of the quality of the other proofs against Jeff at this hearing, the deposition cannot be considered merely cumulative. Alone it cannot sustain a finding against Jeff. See Franklin v. District School Board of Hendry County, 356 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). I would reverse. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). . United States v. Parr-Pla, 549 F. 2d 660 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 972, 97 S.Ct. 2935, 53 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1977); cf. Baxter v.…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw