public records exception in Florida

2008Finally, had a proper, timely objection been made, we agree with Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d at 546 , that the letter in evidence could be properly considered by the trial court under the public records exception to the hearsay rule, subsection 90.803(8), Florida Statutes (2005). subsection 90.803(8) provides that: Public Records and Reports: Records, reports, statements reduced to writing, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth the activities of the office or agency, or matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to matters which there was a du

2008Compare Yisrael, 938 So.2d at 550 (find ing the DOC release-date letter admissible under the public-records exception and stating that "[u]nder the facts and circumstances presented here, we do not perceive any necessity to read into the public records exception, a requirement that a statement under seal also attach copies or identify such physical papers or electronic data from which the declarant derived the criminal history information”), with Gray, 910 So.2d at 869 (finding that the DOC release-date letter was inadmissible “under any exception to the rule excluding hearsay,” and noting tha

2009Id. (citing Parker v. State, 973 So.2d 1167, 1168-69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); § 90.902(11), Fla. Stat.2004).

2009Id. (citing Parker v. State, 973 So.2d 1167, 1168-69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); § 90.902(11), Fla. Stat. (2004)).

2008Compare Yisrael, 938 So.2d at 550 (finding the DOC release-date letter admissible under the public-records exception and stating that "[u]nder the facts and circumstances presented here, we do not perceive any necessity to read into the public records exception, a requirement that a statement under seal also attach copies or identify such physical papers or electronic data from which the declarant derived the criminal history information"), with Gray, 910 So.2d at 869 (finding that the DOC release-date letter was inadmissible "under any exception to the rule excluding hearsay," and noting that

2008Compare Yisrael, 938 So.2d at 550 (find ing the DOC release-date letter admissible under the public-records exception and stating that "[u]nder the facts and circumstances presented here, we do not perceive any necessity to read into the public records exception, a requirement that a statement under seal also attach copies or identify such physical papers or electronic data from which the declarant derived the criminal history information”), with Gray, 910 So.2d at 869 (finding that the DOC release-date letter was inadmissible “under any exception to the rule excluding hearsay,” and noting tha

2010Servs., 698 So.2d 1194, 1201 (Fla.1997) (citing Charles W.

2010See Lee, 698 So.2d at 1201 (requiring a witness who has personal knowledge of the facts to testify).

2018See, e.g., Holborough v. State, 103 So. 3d 221 , 222–23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (concluding that testimony from the investigating officer that he identified the victim based on a Florida ID was inadmissible hearsay because "[e]ven if the ID qualified as a public record for the purpose of the section 90.803(8) exception to the hearsay rule for public records, the officer's in-court testimony about what the ID said was hearsay falling under no exception"); Tillman v. State, 964 So. 2d 785, 787-789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (concluding officers' testimony regarding the contents of BOLOs and that appellant

2013See Holborough v. State, 103 So.3d 221, 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (arresting officer’s testimony identifying the non-testifying victim was inadmissible hearsay where no evidence existed that the officer personally knew the victim apart from the victim’s display of an identification card, which itself was hearsay for which the state did not attempt to meet the public records exception to the hearsay rule).

2008See Gandy v. State, 846 So.2d 1141, 1144 (Fla.2003) (outlining the four-corners conflict-jurisdiction rule). [5] Rules of evidence are generally considered rules of procedure, and hence, retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the federal and Florida Constitutions.

2008See Gandy v. State, 846 So.2d 1141, 1144 (Fla.2003) (outlining the four-corners conflict-jurisdiction rule). .

2008Compare Yisrael, 938 So.2d at 550 (finding the DOC release-date letter admissible under the public-records exception and stating that "[u]nder the facts and circumstances presented here, we do not perceive any necessity to read into the public records exception, a requirement that a statement under seal also attach copies or identify such physical papers or electronic data from which the declarant derived the criminal history information"), with Gray, 910 So.2d at 869 (finding that the DOC release-date letter was inadmissible "under any exception to the rule excluding hearsay," and noting that

2008Compare Yisrael, 938 So.2d at 550 (find ing the DOC release-date letter admissible under the public-records exception and stating that "[u]nder the facts and circumstances presented here, we do not perceive any necessity to read into the public records exception, a requirement that a statement under seal also attach copies or identify such physical papers or electronic data from which the declarant derived the criminal history information”), with Gray, 910 So.2d at 869 (finding that the DOC release-date letter was inadmissible “under any exception to the rule excluding hearsay,” and noting tha

2007See Rodriguez, 919 So.2d at 1275 (concluding that the ex parte communication was purely administrative when the state attorney, on the public records request, informed the judge that the hearing was not a status hearing, but an evidentiary hearing); Arbelaez v. State, 775 So.2d 909, 916 (Fla.2000) (determining that the ex parte communication was purely administrative when the communications related to the time period for the State to file its 3.850 response and set dates for an evidentiary hearing and the defendant's public records hearing).

2006See Arbelaez v. State, 775 So.2d 909, 916 (Fla.2000) (concluding that alleged ex parte communications related to time period for the State to file its response to the defendant's 3.850 motion, setting a date for an evidentiary hearing, and setting a date for the defendant's public records hearing were purely administrative).

2006The defendant must support his motion . . . with specific factual allegations." Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 404 (Fla.2005) (quoting Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650, 659 (Fla.2000)).

2005Far from being a "specific factual allegation[]" as required by Thompson, 759 So.2d at 659 , this allegation amounts to a "fishing expedition for records." Moore v. State, 820 So.2d 199, 204 (Fla.2002) (rejecting a public records claim because "importantly, [the defendant] has made no showing that there is any additional information that has not been disclosed").

2005The defendant must support his motion... with specific factual allegations." Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650, 659 (Fla.2000) (citation omitted) (citing Downs v. State, 740 So.2d 506, 510-11 (Fla.1999)).

2000See Downs, 740 So.2d at 510-11 .

2025See id. (citing § 90.803(8), Fla. Stat. (1999)).

2007Answering the question in the negative, our high court held that "unlike the information in the police report which petitioner [sought] to rely on, the jail records relied upon in [an earlier case, State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 430 (Fla.1998)] clearly fall under the public records exception to the hearsay rule." Burgess, 831 So.2d at 142 .

2008Hence, the appearance of impropriety could be seen as greater here than in Rodriguez v. State, 919 So.2d 1252 (Fla.2005), where the trial judge's testimony in the public records hearing did not relate to any claim in the defendant's postconviction motion.

2007See Rodriguez, 919 So.2d at 1275 (concluding that the ex parte communication was purely administrative when the state attorney, on the public records request, informed the judge that the hearing was not a status hearing, but an evidentiary hearing); Arbelaez v. State, 775 So.2d 909, 916 (Fla.2000) (determining that the ex parte communication was purely administrative when the communications related to the time period for the State to file its 3.850 response and set dates for an evidentiary hearing and the defendant's public records hearing).

2018See, e.g., Holborough v. State, 103 So. 3d 221 , 222–23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (concluding that testimony from the investigating officer that he identified the victim based on a Florida ID was inadmissible hearsay because "[e]ven if the ID qualified as a public record for the purpose of the section 90.803(8) exception to the hearsay rule for public records, the officer's in-court testimony about what the ID said was hearsay falling under no exception"); Tillman v. State, 964 So. 2d 785, 787-789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (concluding officers' testimony regarding the contents of BOLOs and that appellant

2017See § 90.803(6), (8); see also Whitley v. State, 1 So.3d 414, 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

2017Compare Darragh, 95 So.3d at 900 (holding that printouts of government website allowing users to estimate potential military benefits based upon users’ assumptions about the future were inadmissible under section 90.803(8), as they “d[id] not simply set forth the activities of a government agency”), with Gatlin v. State, 618 So.2d 765, 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (finding that state’s affidavit detailing costs of prosecution fell within first category of the public records exception).

2017Compare Darragh, 95 So.3d at 900 (holding that printouts of government website allowing users to estimate potential military benefits based upon users’ assumptions about the future were inadmissible under section 90.803(8), as they “d[id] not simply set forth the activities of a government agency”), with Gatlin v. State, 618 So.2d 765, 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (finding that state’s affidavit detailing costs of prosecution fell within first category of the public records exception).

2016See §§ 90.803(8) & (14), Fla. Stat. (2015); see also Sproule v. State, 927 So.2d 46, 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that a certified copy of a driving record falls under the public record exception); Ham v. Heintzelman’s Ford, Inc., 256 So.2d 264, 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (noting that a certified copy of a certificate of title would be admissible under the public records exception).

2016See §§ 90.803(8) & (14), Fla. Stat. (2015); see also Sproule v. State, 927 So.2d 46, 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that a certified copy of a driving record falls under the public record exception); Ham v. Heintzelman’s Ford, Inc., 256 So.2d 264, 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (noting that a certified copy of a certificate of title would be admissible under the public records exception).

2012It sets forth the activities of the agency pursuant to the FDA’s statutory duty to take appropriate action to ensure drug safety, similar to the documents created by other government agencies and admitted into evidence under the public records exception in Ellis, McDonnell Douglas Corp., and Givens, supra. Accordingly, we conclude that the FDA advisory was admissible as a public record as setting forth the activities of the office or agency.

2012Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 532 F.2d 957 , 983 n. 79 (5th Cir.1976) (noting that a statement in an annual report of the Department of Commerce to the Joint Committee on Defense Pi-oduction was admissible under the public records exception); Givens v. Lederle, 556 F.2d 1341, 1346 (5th Cir.1977) (determining that the Annual Poliomyelitis Summary prepared by the Center for Disease Control, which included the record of other vaccine-induced polio cases, was admissible as a public record).

2012See American Motors Corp. v. Ellis, 403 So.2d 459, 468-69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (holding that trial court properly admitted into evidence United States Department of Transportation study on crash severity statistics under the public records exception to the hearsay rule).

2009However, “the supreme court held that a signed release date-letter, written under seal, or a section 90.902(11) business record certification, may be used to authenticate an attached DOC ‘Crime and Time Report’ to render the entire report admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.” Ingram v. State, 7 So.3d 657, 657-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citing Yisrael, 993 So.2d at 960 ).

2009See §§ 90.803(8); 90.902(2), Fla. Stat. (2007); Lee v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 698 So.2d 1194, 1201 (Fla.1997); Carter v. State, 951 So.2d 939, 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).