North v. State, 221 So. 3d 1235

Shane North was a foreman dismantling a shuttered power plant; company policy prohibited employees from taking scrap metals, which were to be removed by a vendor.
Company GPS showed North's truck went to a recycling facility during work hours; an investigation found he sold nearly four tons of plant scrap by representing it as his own.
North was charged with two counts of trafficking in stolen property under § 812.091(1), Fla. Stat.
Before testifying, North proffered that he would describe emails from his supervisors and the scrap vendor giving him permission to take/sell the scrap.
The trial court ruled that testimony inadmissible as hearsay; North declined to testify, was convicted by a jury, and sentenced to concurrent prison terms.
On appeal, the Second District held the trial court erred: the proffered out-of-court statements were admissible nonhearsay evidence of North’s state of mind (negating criminal intent), reversal and a new trial were required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether emails/outsider statements North would relate are hearsay	North: statements not hearsay because offered to show his state of mind/belief he had permission, not to prove truth of emails	State: excluded as hearsay; availability of declarants raised as related concern	Court: statements admissible as nonhearsay to show North's state of mind; exclusion was error
Whether erroneous exclusion was harmless	North: exclusion affected his decision not to testify and was material to mens rea	State: conviction should stand despite exclusion	Court: error was not harmless; reversed and remanded for new trial

Cannon v. State, 180 So. 3d 1023 (hearsay question reviewed de novo)
Massey v. State, 109 So. 3d 324 (out‑of‑court statements may serve purposes other than proving truth)
Jenkins v. State, 189 So. 3d 866 (statements offered to prove listener's state of mind are not hearsay)
Miller v. State, 870 So. 2d 15 (similar: statement’s effect on listener admissible to explain conduct)
Buchanan v. State, 743 So. 2d 59 (excluding permission statements as hearsay was error when offered to negate intent)
White v. State, 993 So. 2d 611 (permission testimony not hearsay when used to negate criminal intent)
Alfaro v. State, 837 So. 2d 429 (improper exclusion of alleged permission statements)
Glenn v. State, 753 So. 2d 669 (statutory offense is general intent; mens rea remains a matter to be proven)
Armstrong v. State, 73 So. 3d 155 (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion generally)