Jenkins v. State
189 So. 3d 866
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant (Ernest Jenkins) convicted of failing to reregister as a sex offender after missing his May 2012 biannual registration requirement.
- Appellant testified he went to the Palm Beach County stockade to reregister but was told by a stockade employee he could not register because of an outstanding unrelated arrest warrant, so he left.
- Defense sought to admit the stockade employee's out-of-court statement to explain Appellant’s belief and consequent conduct (state of mind).
- The trial court sustained the State’s hearsay objection and excluded the testimony; defense counsel had previously told the jury in opening that Appellant was told he could not reregister.
- The jury convicted Appellant; on appeal he argued exclusion was reversible error because the statement was offered not for its truth but for its effect on Appellant’s state of mind.
- The Fourth District agreed the testimony was non-hearsay (offered to show effect on listener), found the exclusion was not harmless, reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stockade employee’s out-of-court statement was hearsay | The statement was offered to show Appellant’s belief and explain his conduct (state of mind), so it is not hearsay | The statement was hearsay and properly excluded because it asserted a factual claim about registration policy | Statement was not hearsay when offered to show effect on the listener; exclusion was erroneous |
| Whether the hearsay error was harmless | Exclusion deprived jury of critical evidence of Appellant’s lack of willfulness | Any error was harmless because defense theory was presented in opening and closing arguments | Error was not harmless; verdict may have been affected |
| Preservation of issue for appeal | Sidebar and opening statement sufficiently disclosed substance of excluded testimony | No exact proffer was made, so issue not properly preserved | Issue preserved: court and counsel clarified substance during sidebar and opening, so appellate review permitted |
| Whether to decide sentencing/departure issue | N/A (secondary argument) | N/A | Court declined to address sentencing because reversal on evidentiary error required retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Krampert v. State, 13 So.3d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (statements offered to explain defendant’s conduct/state of mind are not hearsay)
- Alfaro v. State, 837 So.2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (statement admissible to show good-faith belief — effect on listener)
- Penalver v. State, 926 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 2006) (non-hearsay when offered for purpose other than truth, e.g., state of mind)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error beneficiary must prove error did not contribute to verdict)
- Petruschke v. State, 125 So.3d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (proffer not required where substance of excluded testimony is made known on record)