Redd v. State
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18654
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Appellant Samuel Dennis Redd was convicted of trafficking in cocaine after the State introduced double hearsay to prove possession.
- Law enforcement found cocaine residue, other drugs, and related items in multiple rooms of a house shared by Appellant and others.
- A large quantity of cocaine was discovered in a laundry room in plain view, allegedly connected to Appellant, along with other corroborating items and personal effects.
- A Nissan Altima linked to Appellant contained drug paraphernalia and fingerprinted baggies, supporting the State’s theory of possession.
- During cross-examination, defense questioned why another occupant, Thomas, was not charged, prompting the State to offer additional testimony on Thomas’ cooperation via re-direct.
- The trial court admitted the otherwise inadmissible statements about Thomas’ ownership of the cocaine, over defense objections, which the court later rejected as harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of double hearsay | Redd argues double hearsay was inadmissible and not justified by opening the door. | State asserts door was opened by defense cross-examination, permitting hearsay. | Door did not justify admission; error not harmless; reversed and remanded. |
| Open door fairness standard | Issue was whether defense opening justified admitting unreliable statements. | Argues there was no fair basis to admit Thomas’ statements to explain etc. | Admission not fair; door not opened; error reversible. |
| Impact on verdict without hearsay | Thomas’ statements were central tying Appellant to cocaine. | Without statements, evidence was insufficient to sustain trafficking. | Without inadmissible evidence, likely insufficient; retrial allowed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for trafficking vs possession | Evidence showed dominion and control via various locations in the home. | Presence alone not enough; lacked independent proof of knowledge and control. | Without Thomas’ statements, trafficking not proven; possession may be lesser included offense. |
| Retrial after reversal | If error reversible, retrial is permissible under law. | Requests outright acquittal on retrial grounds. | Case reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29 (Fla.2000) (opening the door to qualification of evidence must be fair and necessary)
- Hill v. State, 933 So.2d 667 (Fla.1st DCA 2006) (door must correct unfairness; mere incompleteness not enough)
- Alcantar v. State, 987 So.2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (inadmissible evidence should not be admitted absent a proper purpose)
- Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla.1999) (consider unreliability when admitting hearsay under door doctrine)
- DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986) (harmless error standard for appellate review)
- Dennis v. State, 817 So.2d 741 (Fla.2002) (door may be opened to admit hearsay in certain contexts)