hearsay rule in Florida

2021“If evidence is to be admitted under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, it must be offered in strict compliance with the requirements of the particular exception.” Yisrael, 993 So. 2d at 957 .

2020Additionally, this Court has made clear that evidence admitted under an exception to the hearsay rule “must be offered in strict compliance with the requirements of the particular exception.” Yisrael, 993 So. 2d at 957 (quoting Johnson v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab.

2026“While the business records exception to the hearsay rule allows the admission of a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, it does not authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence.” Helton v. Bank of Am., N.A., 187 So. 3d 245, 247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting Thompson v. State, 705 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)).

2025Ass'n, 112 So. 3d 778, 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[T]he trial court abused its discretion in allowing [the plaintiff's litigation specialist] to testify over objection about the contents of [the plaintiff's] business records to prove the amount of debt without having first admitted those business records."); Thompson v. State, 705 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("[T]he business- records exception to the hearsay rule . . . does not authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence.").

2016“Revocation may, however, be based solely upon hearsay evidence that *249 falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.” Id. at 887 (citing Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)).

2011See Gammon v. State, 778 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citing Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), for the proposition that hearsay evidence falling within an exception to the hearsay rule may support a revocation of probation).

2009Servs., 546 So.2d 741, 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Harris v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm’n, 495 So.2d 806, 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“The general rule is that a hearsay statement which includes another hearsay statement is admissible only when both statements conform to the requirements of a hearsay exception.”); Van Zant, 372 So.2d at 503 .

2005See Quinn, 662 So.2d at 953-54 ; see also Hill v. State, 549 So.2d 179, 181 (Fla.1989); Johnson v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 546 So.2d 741, 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Harris v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n, 495 So.2d 806, 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) ("The general rule is that a hearsay statement which includes another hearsay statement is admissible only when both statements conform to the requirements of a hearsay exception."); Van Zant, 372 So.2d at 503 .

2018Thus, statements made by someone who is excited are spontaneous and have sufficient guarantees of truthfulness.” Rogers v. State, 660 So. 2d 237, 240 (Fla. 1995) (citing Charles W.

2004Recognizing these statements were hearsay, the State sought their admission under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. *269 Section 90.803(2), Florida Statutes (2002), provides for the admission of an available declarant's out-of-court "statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition." The admissibility of an excited utterance is premised on the notion that in such circumstances "the declarant does not have the reflective capacity necessary for conscious misrep

2018Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952, 956 (Fla. 2008); accord § 90.803(6)(a). "[W]hen a business record contains a hearsay statement, the admissibility of the record depends on whether the hearsay statement in the record would itself be admissible under some exception to the hearsay rule." Van Zant v. State, 372 So. 2d 502, 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). "[I]f the person who prepared the record could not testify in court concerning the recorded information, the information does not become admissible as evidence merely because it has been recorded in the regular course of business." Id.

2018Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952, 956 (Fla. 2008); accord § 90.803(6)(a). "[W]hen a business record contains a hearsay statement, the admissibility of the record depends on whether the hearsay statement in the record would itself be admissible under some exception to the hearsay rule." Van Zant v. State, 372 So. 2d 502, 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). "[I]f the person who prepared the record could not testify in court concerning the recorded information, the information does not become admissible as evidence merely because it has been recorded in the regular course of business." Id.

2010The “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule allows the admission of a hearsay statement “relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. “[Tjhere must be “an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement,” “the statement must have been made before there was time to contrive or misrepresent,” and “the statement must be made while the person is under the stress of excitement caused by the event.” State v. Jano, 524 So.2d 660, 661 (Fla.1988).

2001In each case, however, the statements could have been properly admitted, if otherwise admissible, under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (2000); State v. Jano, 524 So.2d 660 (Fla.1988).

2014As announced by the supreme court in Stoll v. State, 762 So.2d 870 (Fla. 2000), the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule requires a showing that there was an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement, and the statement was made under the stress or excitement caused by the event before the de-clarant had time to reflect or contrive.

2006The court permitted the testimony based upon the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. The supreme court’s opinion in Stoll v. State, 762 So.2d 870, 873 (Fla.2000), explains the excited utterance exception: [I]n order for an excited utterance to be admissible, the following requirements must be met: (1) there must have been an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement; (2) the statement must have been made before there was time to contrive or misrepresent; and (3) the statement must have been made while the person was under the stress of excitement c

2022However, “whether evidence is admissible in evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is a question of law . . . [subject to] the de novo standard of review.” Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Powell v. State, 99 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)).

2019Also, “whether evidence is admissible in evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is a question of law . . . [subject to] the de novo standard of review.” Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Powell v. State, 99 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1 On appeal, the State concedes error on this issue and supports a remand for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency hearing. 2The court also denied motions for mistrial based on the use of the informant’s out-of-court statements after the State’s opening argument and again during the State’s closing argum

2011“In order for a statement to qualify as an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to section 90.803(2) ... ‘the statement must be made: (1) regarding an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement; (2) before there was time to contrive or misrepresent; and (3) while the person was under the stress or excitement caused by the event.’ ” Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 29 (Fla.2009) (quoting Hudson v. State, 992 So.2d 96, 107 (Fla.2008)).

2011"In order for a statement to qualify as an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to section 90.803(2)... `the statement must be made: (1) regarding an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement; (2) before there was time to contrive or misrepresent; and (3) while the person was under the stress or excitement caused by the event.'" Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 29 (Fla.2009) (quoting Hudson v. State, 992 So.2d 96, 107 (Fla.2008)).

2022However, “whether evidence is admissible in evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is a question of law . . . [subject to] the de novo standard of review.” Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Powell v. State, 99 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)).

2019Also, “whether evidence is admissible in evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is a question of law . . . [subject to] the de novo standard of review.” Browne v. State, 132 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Powell v. State, 99 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1 On appeal, the State concedes error on this issue and supports a remand for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competency hearing. 2The court also denied motions for mistrial based on the use of the informant’s out-of-court statements after the State’s opening argument and again during the State’s closing argum

2009Servs., 546 So.2d 741, 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Harris v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm’n, 495 So.2d 806, 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“The general rule is that a hearsay statement which includes another hearsay statement is admissible only when both statements conform to the requirements of a hearsay exception.”); Van Zant, 372 So.2d at 503 .

2007See Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137, 140 (Fla. 2002) (noting that police reports or criminal arrest affidavits are not admissible into evidence in criminal proceedings as a public record exception to the hearsay rule because that exception expressly excludes them); Reichenberg v. Davis, 846 So.2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding that reports of DCF investigators which contained witness interviews were not admissible under the business or public records exception to the hearsay rule because the statements in the reports were not based upon the personal knowledge of an agent of the busine

2006The notice shall include a written statement of the content of the elderly person's or disabled adult's statement, the time at which the statement was made, the circumstances surrounding the statement which indicate its reliability, and such other particulars as necessary to provide full disclosure of the statement. (c) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this subsection. [4] We have stated that, after "[n]oting the similarities between the confrontation clauses of the federal and Florida constitutions, we perceive no reason to in

1994As the appellant points out, the hearsay exception under which this testimony might have been admitted, had there been an objection, section 90.808(23), is not firmly rooted, Perez v. State, 536 So.2d 206, 209 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 923 , 109 S.Ct. 3253 , 106 L.Ed.2d 599 (1989), and thus the testimony is presumed unreliable and inadmissible absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

1997Even though probation department records may, if a proper predicate is established, be admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the state did not attempt to introduce those records in this case. § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. (1995); Williams v. State, 666 So.2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Adams, 521 So.2d at 338 .

1989Records prepared by the probation department, may, with the showing of a proper predicate, be admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. (1987); Adams v. State, 521 So.2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

2012Capehart, 583 So.2d at 1012 ; Bender v. State, 472 So.2d 1370, 1371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finding the hearsay rule poses no obstacle to expert testimony premised upon tests, records, data, or opinions of another, where such information is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field); accord § 90.704, Fla. Stat. (2010).

2004As the court explained in Bender v. State, 472 So.2d 1370, 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), the rule allowing an expert witness to consider hearsay statements in rendering an opinion came about because "the traditional constraints of the hearsay rule do not, in many instances, comport with the reality that expert opinions are based on other than first-hand observation." The testimony at issue in this case is an opinion regarding the proper standard of medical care.

2008In Lyles v. State, 412 So.2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the Second District held, "In order for the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule to be applicable, there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting." Id. at 460 .

2008In Lyles v. State, 412 So.2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the Second District held, "In order for the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule to be applicable, there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting." Id. at 460 .

2008Relying on Love v. Garcia, 634 So.2d 158 (Fla.1994), this Court held "that a hospital record of a blood test made for medical purposes, which is maintained by the hospital as a medical or business record may be admitted in criminal cases pursuant to the business record exception to the hearsay rule." Baber, 775 So.2d at 263 .

2007In addition, although medical records are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, see Love v. Garcia, 634 So.2d 158, 159-60 (Fla.1994), a judge should exclude these records when it is shown that the records are not trustworthy.

2024An exception to the hearsay rule exists when a sexual abuse victim aged sixteen or younger testifies and when "the source of information or the method or circumstances by which the statement is reported" is trustworthy and the "time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability." § 90.803(23)(a)1, 2.a; Townsend, 635 So. 2d at 954 .

2019See § 90.803(23), Fla. Stat. (2018) (allowing as an exception to the hearsay rule, the admission of a statement of a child victim of sexual abuse when certain conditions have been met.) Before permitting statements of a child victim to be admitted into evidence, the trial court must find that “the source of the information through which the statement is reported is trustworthy.” State v. Townsend, 635 So. 2d 949, 954 (Fla. 1994).

1997Since the legislature enacted section 90.803(23) in 1985, we have decided various questions of law concerning this important hearsay exception. [4] *1159 In 1993, we acknowledged that the statute's purpose as "clearly [being] the Florida Legislature's response to the need to establish special protections for child victims in the judicial system." State v. Jones, 625 So.2d 821, 825 (Fla.1993). [5] We found that the statute's legislative history revealed an intent to expand the medical diagnosis and treatment and excited utterance hearsay exceptions in order to include an exception for statement

1997Since the legislature enacted section 90.803(23) in 1985, we have decided various questions of law concerning this important hearsay exception. 4 In 1993, we acknowledged that the statute’s purpose as “clearly [being] the Florida Legislature’s response to the need to establish special protections for child victims in the judicial system.” State v. Jones, 625 So.2d 821, 825 (Fla.1993). 5 We found that the statute’s legislative history revealed an intent to expand the medical diagnosis and treatment and excited utterance hearsay exceptions in order to include an exception for statements of child

2025Nor does the information contained in the report in question fall under any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.” Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137, 140 (Fla. 2002) (citation omitted).

2025Morelli v. State, 198 So. 3d 997, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “[T]he information contained in police reports is ordinarily considered hearsay and inadmissible in an adversary criminal proceeding,” and the information in the report does not “fall under any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.” Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137, 140 (Fla. 2002).