Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

477 So. 2d 26

477 So.2d 26

10 Fla.L.Weekly 2350

Docket Nos. 84-792, 84-1317.

Wells v. State

Willie WELLS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 15, 1985.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1985-10-15

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“probable cause exception to the hearsay rule.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 559 So. 2d 436 - Adams v. State

Relies on Purcell v. Deli Man, Inc. · Postell v. State · Collins v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2003

7 state decisions

40198519902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*27 Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Jack B. Ludin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The appellant's conviction of attempted second degree murder is reversed because of the erroneous admission of hearsay testimony by the investigating police officer concerning material statements related to him by a witness to the incident.[1]Bricker v. State,462 So.2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); § 90.802, Fla. Stat. (1983). The fact that the witness testified at the trial does not affect the inadmissibility of his hearsay statements. Bricker, Aho v. State,393 So.2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Since, contrary to the only contention now urged by the state, we find that the admission of the out-of-court statements, which were highly adverse to the defendant (and contrary to the witness's trial testimony), was not harmless, a new trial is required.

¶6Reversed.

NOTES

¶7[1] The evidence was apparently admitted below on the theory that information given to an officer upon which his decision to arrest the defendant was based involves some kind of "probable cause exception" to the hearsay rule. We re-reiterate that no such exception exists. Collins v. State,65 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1953); Kirby v. State,44 Fla. 81, 32 So. 836 (1902); Postell v. State,398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. for review denied,411 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1981); see also Lane v. State,430 So.2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (no "BOLO exception").

/477/so2d/26 · .json · Public domain