Arnold v. State

Cary ARNOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 3, 1986.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-12-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“While hearsay is admissible in probation proceedings, proof of a violation must be supported by other competent non-hearsay evidence.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Sinclair v. State

Relies on Combs v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-12-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2008

11 state decisions

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 →

¶1Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Robert L. Teitler, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Donna R. Slebodnik, Certified Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The appellant's probation was revoked on the grounds that he was in possession of cocaine. The only proof that the substance in question was cocaine was in the form of an oral hearsay reference to *1357 the results of a laboratory test. While hearsay is admissible in revocation proceedings, proof of a violation must be supported by other competent, non-hearsay, evidence. Combs v. State,351 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Accordingly, we reverse and remand without prejudice to the court to conduct another evidentiary hearing on appellant's alleged violations.

¶5ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

¶6LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.