Massey v. State
109 So. 3d 324
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Massey was convicted after a jury trial of possession of cocaine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- The charges stemmed from a traffic stop; a detective followed a car Massey rode in and observed the driver commit a stop-sign violation.
- Police searched the car and Massey, finding only cash on Massey and later locating a gun and drugs about 100 yards from the stop.
- The driver testified that Massey threw something from the car; fingerprint evidence on the gun was not matched to Massey.
- The driver gave a jailhouse interview with the arresting detective ten days after the arrest; this recording was sought to be admitted by Massey for impeachment and non-hearsay purposes.
- The trial court excluded the jailhouse recording as hearsay; Massey argued it was non-hearsay relevant to show the driver parroting the detective’s version.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of cash found on Massey | Massey argues cash is irrelevant to possession of cocaine. | State contends cash is admissible as probative of possession. | Issue not preserved; defense withdrew objection and no ruling obtained. |
| Exclusion of jailhouse interview recording | Tape non-hearsay and impeachment, showing driver parroting detective. | Recording is hearsay and admissibility is improper as impeachment. | Reversed and remanded for new trial; recording admissible as non-hearsay to impeach and show the driver’s testimony was coachable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buitrago v. State, 950 So.2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (cash evidence relevance limited to charged offense)
- Ferguson v. State, 697 So.2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (preservation of error requires a ruling)
- Carratelli v. State, 832 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (need for trial court ruling to preserve issues)
- Rios v. State, 920 So.2d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (preservation rule reiterated)
- K.P. v. State, 90 So.3d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (non-hearsay uses of prior statements)
- Marshall v. State, 68 So.3d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (impeachment and prior inconsistent statements)
- Foster v. State, 778 So.2d 906 (Fla. 2000) (non-hearsay purposes of witnesses' statements)
- Eugene v. State, 53 So.3d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (non-hearsay purposes in admissibility analysis)
- S.D.T. v. State, 33 So.3d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (elements and purposes for non-hearsay statements)
- Stotler v. State, 834 So.2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (describes purposes for verbal acts and non-hearsay context)
- A.J. v. State, 677 So.2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (verbal acts as independent legal significance)
- Dorsey v. Reddy, 931 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (state of mind and notice in non-hearsay context)
- Alfaro v. State, 837 So.2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (non-hearsay purposes recognized)