Roop v. State
228 So. 3d 633
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On January 5, 2014 a metal pipe was thrown at Frank Yeater’s truck; Yeater identified Devin Roop as the thrower. A deputy later recovered the pipe but no fingerprints were obtained.
- Yeater and Roop had a long-standing hostile relationship and an earlier incident involving Roop’s stepbrother occurred five days before the pipe-throwing.
- Yeater called 911 about two minutes after the incident and on the recorded call identified Roop as the assailant while narrating his search for the object.
- At trial Yeater testified consistently and said he was frightened and called 911 roughly two minutes after the event; the recording (redacted) was admitted over Roop’s hearsay objection. Roop’s stepfather testified to an alibi that Roop was at home that day, but his credibility was damaged on cross-examination.
- Roop was convicted of throwing a deadly missile and criminal mischief and appealed, arguing the 911 identification was inadmissible hearsay and not harmless if erroneously admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roop) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 911 identification | The 911 statement identifying Roop was hearsay and did not qualify as an excited utterance or spontaneous statement | The statement was admissible under the excited utterance (or spontaneous statement) exception because it related to a startling event and was made while Yeater was under stress about two minutes after the event | Court: Admission as an excited utterance was within trial court's discretion — no abuse of discretion |
| Procedural predicate / foundation | Trial court failed to require sufficient proof that Yeater had not engaged in reflective thought before the call | The trial record (Yeater’s testimony, timing, and demeanor) provided a sufficient predicate; trial court could observe witness and reasonably find excited state | Court: State laid adequate foundation; any contrary interpretation is not enough to overcome abuse-of-discretion standard |
| Harmless-error analysis | Admission improperly bolstered Yeater’s credibility in a close credibility contest and was not harmless | The recording was cumulative of Yeater’s live testimony and Roop’s alibi witness was severely discredited, so any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Court: Even if erroneous, admission was harmless and did not affect verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. State, 992 So.2d 96 (discusses excited utterance elements and standard of review for predicate)
- Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17 (same articulation of excited utterance test)
- Williams v. State, 967 So.2d 735 (proponent must show absence of reflective thought if sufficient time passed)
- Tucker v. State, 884 So.2d 168 (trial court must find predicate facts by preponderance; procedure for excited utterance)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (harmless-error standard)
- Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493 (prior consistent statements and hearsay exceptions)
- Cox v. State, 473 So.2d 778 (examples of excited-utterance applications)