75 So. 3d 749
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bray challenges the revocation of his community control supervision.
- Urine testing conducted at the request of Bray's community control officer indicated cocaine use.
- The urine sample was sent to an independent lab which reported cocaine present.
- An affidavit alleging a community control violation was filed and a hearing followed.
- Bray admitted OTC toothache medication but denied cocaine use and objected to the lab report's admissibility due to absence of lab personnel testimony.
- The trial court admitted the lab report and hearsay testimony from two community control officers, and revoked Bray's community control based on that evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May revocation be based solely on hearsay evidence? | Bray | Bray's revocation relied on hearsay; lab report and officers' testimony lack admissible basis. | No; revocation cannot be based solely on hearsay. |
| Is the laboratory report admissible without live testimony from lab personnel? | Bray | Lab report admissible as business record without lab personnel present. | No; laboratory report is hearsay and cannot support revocation alone. |
| Are the officers' testimony about urinalysis admissible hearsay without expertise? | Bray | Officers' testimony (hundreds of tests) should be admissible; expertise not required. | No; officers' testimony is hearsay without demonstrated narcotics testing expertise. |
| Does Branch v. State support admission of hearsay where objection was lodged? | Bray | Branch supports admissibility where hearsay objection not raised. | Distinguishable; cannot rely on Branch to affirm admission. |
| What is the appropriate remedy given improper hearsay evidence? | Bray | Revocation based on admissible evidence; nevertheless proper. | Revocation reversed; order reinstated Bray to community control. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hogan v. State, 583 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (hearsay limits in revocation proceedings)
- Forbes v. State, 38 So.3d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (lab report hearsay considerations)
- Isaac v. State, 971 So.2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (revocation cannot be based on hearsay alone)
- L.R. v. State, 557 So.2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (hearsay limitations in evidence)
- Weaver v. State, 543 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (hearsay implications in testing testimony)
- Sinclair v. State, 995 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (expertise considerations for admissibility)
- Branch v. State, 837 So.2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (distinguishes in-office test objections)
- Tallahassee Furniture Co., Inc. v. Harrison, 583 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (hearsay admissibility when not objected to)