ALVIN DUNBAR v. STATE OF FLORIDA
230 So. 3d 8
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Alvin Dunbar convicted of robbery after victim (a Salvation Army shelter resident) testified defendants assaulted him and stole cash, a money order, and bus passes. No physical eyewitness corroborated the victim’s account.
- Victim testified he lived at the shelter, worked, and was drug-tested frequently; he denied using drugs and said failing a test would result in removal from the shelter.
- Police recovered some stolen items from the co-defendant; officers observed Dunbar and co-defendant appeared high and both admitted smoking crack that evening. Dunbar’s statement to police claimed they smoked the victim’s crack together.
- At trial the lead detective testified (over defense hearsay objection) that he spoke with the victim’s shelter case manager who confirmed the victim lived at the shelter and that shelter work-program residents were regularly drug-tested.
- The State relied on that testimony to rebut Dunbar’s defense that the victim had been using drugs; prosecutor referenced the inadmissible statements in rebuttal closing. The State conceded admission was erroneous on appeal but argued the error was harmless.
- Fourth District reversed the conviction and remanded for new trial, holding the out-of-court statements were inadmissible hearsay and the error was not harmless because credibility was central and the hearsay bolstered the victim’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of case manager’s statements through detective (hearsay) | Statements were admissible to show detective’s investigation and to corroborate victim; any error was harmless | Testimony was inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial because it bolstered victim’s credibility | Reversed: statements were classic hearsay with no exception; admission was error and not harmless |
| Prejudice/harmless-error standard | Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Error materially affected verdict because case turned on credibility | Held not harmless; State failed burden to show no reasonable possibility error contributed to verdict |
| Use of detective’s testimony to rebut defense theory | Testimony legitimately showed investigation undercut defense’s version | Testimony improperly vouched for victim and supplied independent corroboration via hearsay | Court found detective’s testimony improperly bolstered victim and compounded by prosecutor’s closing use |
| Remedy | No new trial necessary if harmless | New trial required if error not harmless | New trial ordered; conviction reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucas v. State, 67 So. 3d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (standard of review for admissibility and hearsay characterization)
- Kendrick v. State, 632 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (harmless-error test applies to improperly admitted hearsay)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (State bears burden to prove error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Lewis v. State, 80 So. 3d 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (harmful error where officer testified non-testifying witnesses implicated defendant in credibility-centered case)
- Carter v. State, 951 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (reversal where prosecutor relied on police reports containing inadmissible hearsay in credibility-critical trial)
- Szuba v. State, 749 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (new trial where officer relayed out-of-court witness descriptions in case resting on credibility)