Billy Joe Pitts v. State of Florida
227 So. 3d 674
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Pitts was driving a 1997 Isuzu that struck and killed Betty Anne McNeely outside a motel; he was charged with felony leaving the scene causing death and felony driving with a suspended license.
- Pitts’s accounts changed: he initially denied involvement, later said another man (Stefan) was driving, and at one point claimed he thought the vehicle hit a dog.
- Evidence at trial included Pitts’s admissions, his DNA on the steering wheel, the vehicle’s severe damage, the victim’s interaction with the hood and windshield, and his emotional reaction the next day.
- The jury convicted Pitts on both counts; the court sentenced him to 20 years for leaving the scene and 5 years for driving with a suspended license.
- On appeal Pitts raised four issues: (1) whether the two charges should have been severed; (2) whether the evidence was insufficient to deny a judgment of acquittal; (3) admissibility of his son’s out-of-court statement; and (4) admissibility of the former girlfriend’s prior inconsistent statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pitts) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance of charges | Joinder prejudiced Pitts because license evidence implied a serious or lifelong suspension and would taint the other charge | Charges arose from same connected transaction; license-status evidence was limited and relevant to motive to flee | Denied — joinder proper and no abuse of discretion |
| Judgment of acquittal (sufficiency) | Reasonable theory of innocence: someone else drove or he thought he hit a dog, not a person | State produced evidence Pitts drove, DNA on wheel, admissions, vehicle damage, and victim’s contact with hood/windshield | Denied — evidence sufficient to disprove claimed defenses |
| Admissibility of son’s statement | Son’s out-of-court accusation was hearsay and should be excluded | Statement was admitted to show Pitts’s reaction (non-hearsay) and alternatively as excited utterance | Admitted — no abuse of discretion; treated as non-hearsay (effect on listener) |
| Prior inconsistent statement of former girlfriend | Officer’s testimony recounting her prior statement was hearsay/improper | Prior statement contradicted her trial testimony and was admissible for impeachment | Admitted — permissible extrinsic evidence to impeach credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Smithers v. State, 826 So. 2d 916 (severance review is for abuse of discretion)
- Fletcher v. State, 168 So. 3d 186 (joinder/consolidation appropriate when causal link exists)
- Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784 (evidence admissible in separate trials if relevant to each offense)
- Thorp v. State, 777 So. 2d 385 (circumstantial-proof standard for judgment of acquittal)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Dorsett v. State, 158 So. 3d 557 (knowledge and awareness elements for leaving scene involving injury/death)
- Mancuso v. State, 652 So. 2d 370 (same elements relating to knowledge of injury)
- Penalver v. State, 926 So. 2d 1118 (out-of-court statements offered for effect on listener are not hearsay)
- Wilcox v. State, 143 So. 3d 359 (definition of inconsistent prior statements for impeachment)
- Monday v. State, 792 So. 2d 1278 (impeachment by prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay)