Trotman v. State, 652 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Trotman v. State, 652 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Edwards v. State (fladistctapp, 2007-09-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edwards v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Id. at 854 (emphasis added); see also Keen v. State, 775 So.2d 263, 271-75 (Fla.2000); Tumblin v. State, 747 So.2d 442, 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Trotman v. State, 652 So.2d 506, 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Saintilus v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
However, similar evils are involved in both cases." Wilding, 674 So.2d at 118-19 ; see also Tumblin v. State, 747 So.2d 442, 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding it was improper to allow officer to testify that he arrested defendant after talking with a non-testifying eyewitness); Trotman v. State, 652 So.2d 506, 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (finding that trial court erred in permitting officer to testify that he went to the location of crime and arrested defendant after speaking to unidentified, non-testifying witness).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schaffer v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
As noted by the Third District Court of Appeal in Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla.1981), where `the inescapable inference from testimony [concerning a tip received by police] is that a non-testifying witness has furnished the police with evidence of the defendant's guilt, the testimony is hearsay, and the defendant's right of confrontation is defeated, notwithstanding that the actual statements made by the non-testifying witness are not repeated.'" [f.o.] 674 So.2d at 118-119 ; see also Tumblin v. State, 747 So.2d 442, 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 199…
discussed Cited "see" Chambers v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Trotman v. State, 652 So.2d 506, 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Davis v. State, 493 So.2d 11, 12-13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Molina v. State 406 So.2d 57, 57-58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rafael Andres v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2018 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g. , Trotman v. State, 652 So.2d 506 , 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (reversing conviction where police officer offered hearsay testimony as to what non-testifying, unidentified witness had told him about defendant's involvement in crime); Bell v. State , 595 So.2d 232 , 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (finding error where police officer testified regarding statements by non-testifying witness); Burney v. State , 579 So.2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (holding that testimony as to statements by unidentified witnesses implicating defendant was inadmissable hearsay when offered to show the logical sequence of…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Norton v. State
Fla. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Trotman v. State, 652 So.2d 506, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (reversing conviction where police officer offered hearsay testimony as to what non-testifying, unidentified witness had told him about defendant's involvement in crime); Bell v. State, 595 So.2d 232, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (finding error where police officer testified regarding statements by non-testifying witness); Burney v. State, 579 So.2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (holding that testimony as to statements by unidentified witnesses implicating defendant was inadmissable hearsay when offered to show the logical sequence of even…
Carlos TROTMAN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
94-1059.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Mar 29, 1995.
652 So. 2d 506
Schwartz, C.J., and Barkdull and Baskin.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

[*507] Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Donald Tunnage, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Doquyen T. Nguyen and Douglas Glaid, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and BASKIN, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The defendant appeals from his convictions for armed robbery and armed burglary. We are compelled to reverse because of a violation of the Postell[1] rule.

The first witness in the case was the investigating and arresting police officer. Without any evidence concerning the circumstances of the offense, he was permitted to testify, over timely objection, that, after speaking to an unidentified and non-testifying "juvenile," he went to the location of the victim's stolen car and arrested the defendant.[2] It takes no imagination whatever to realize that the only thing that the juvenile could have told the detective was that the defendant was involved in the crime. Since that information was imparted by a person who did not himself testify and was not therefore subject to cross examination, the alleged conversation was no more than hearsay. Reversal is therefore required.

As we have repeatedly held:

When the logical implication to be drawn from the testimony leads the jury to believe that a non-testifying witness has given the police evidence of the accused's guilt, the testimony should be disallowed as hearsay.

Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851, 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (citing State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263, 307 A.2d 65 (1973)), review denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1981); accord Bell v. State, 595 So.2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 604 So.2d 488 (Fla. 1992); Davis v. State, 493 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Molina v. State, 406 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see State v. Baird, 572 So.2d 904 (Fla. 1990). This principle is clearly applicable here. Moreover, since the only other evidence against the defendant was a victim identification, the error may not be regarded as harmless and a new trial is required. See Bell, 595 So.2d at 234; Davis, 493 So.2d at 13; Molina, 406 So.2d at 58.

Reversed and remanded.

1 Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1981).
2 The colloquy in question was as follows:

Q. On that day how did you become involved in this case?

A. I interviewed a juvenile.

* * * * * *

Q. Detective, who did you interview?

A. A juvenile.

Q. After you interviewed this juvenile, where did you go?

A. To 50th Street and approximately 14 Avenue.

Q. And what did you find there?

A. A vehicle.

Q. Whose vehicle?

A. The victim's vehicle.

Q. Did you have an opportunity to speak with the victim on that day?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what did the victim tell you?

* * * * * *

A. He advised me that his vehicle had been taken from him.

Q. What did he you tell you in reference to that particular vehicle?

A. That was his vehicle.

Q. After that, where did you go on the next day?

A. To the defendant's home.

Q. And what did you do there?

A. Placed the defendant under arrest.