Dewolfe v. State
62 So. 3d 1142
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- DeWolfe was convicted of felony petit theft for stealing two air conditioners from a house she had recently vacated.
- Neighbor Terry Manley testified she saw DeWolfe and an older man removing the air conditioners and loading them into a pickup truck.
- Defense sought to admit testimony that Bruce Ahlgren had confessed to the theft, via Donald Gibson and Maegen DeWolfe as witnesses.
- The proffered confession was hearsay, claimed to fit the declaration against penal interest exception under Fla. Stat. § 90.804(2)(c).
- The trial court excluded the statements, finding a lack of corroborating trustworthiness, and acted as gatekeeper rather than allowing jury credibility assessment.
- On appeal, the First District held the declaration against penal interest was admissible with sufficient corroboration and that the jury should determine credibility; case reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly admitted or excluded the declaration against penal interest | DeWolfe argues the statements were admissible with corroboration under 90.804(2)(c). | State contends the statements lacked trustworthiness and the court properly gatekept. | Exclusion reversed; declaration against penal interest admissible with corroboration. |
| Who determines credibility of an out-of-court declaration against penal interest | Jury should assess credibility of the declarant-related testimony. | Trial court may evaluate trustworthiness for admissibility. | Jury to assess credibility; trial court determines admissibility with trustworthiness safeguards. |
| Whether the error in excluding the evidence was harmless | Exclusion could have affected verdict; evidence central to defense. | State did not argue harmless error and relied on standard gatekeeping. | Not harmless beyond reasonable doubt; requires new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franqui v. State, 699 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 1997) (trustworthiness in declarations against penal interest; jury credibility is key)
- Masaka v. State, 4 So.3d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (test for admissibility and consistency with other evidence)
- Carpenter v. State, 785 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 2001) (declarations against penal interest; credibility not for trial court to weigh for admissibility)
- Machado v. State, 787 So.2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (consistency of hearsay statements with other evidence supports admissibility)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (confessions and reliability underpin admissibility of evidence in confrontation)
- Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (U.S. 1990) (particularized guarantees of trustworthiness in hearsay exceptions)
- DiGuilio, State v. Contreras, 979 So.2d 896 (Fla. 2008) (harmless error standard for evaluating whether evidentiary error affected verdict)
- Bearden v. State, 62 So.3d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (credibility considerations in evaluating proposed witness testimony)