DOYLE THOMAS WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Doyle Thomas Williams appealed his conviction for engaging a child in sexual activity. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony that violated the rules of evidence and prejudiced the defendant's ability to mount an effective defense based on credibility.
The admission of Selah Lane's hearsay testimony regarding what the deceased father-in-law told her was error because it did not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule. The error was not harmless because the defendant's credibility was critical to his defense on the sexual abuse charge, and the hearsay testimony would have impeached his testimony and negatively affected the credibility of his corroborating witnesses.
[1] Hearsay testimony, not subject to any exceptions, is inadmissible.
[2] Erroneous admission of hearsay testimony is not harmless error when the defendant's credibility is critical to the defense and the testimony could have negatively impacte…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The admission of Selah Lane's testimony regarding her conversation with appellant's father-in-law was error as the testimony clearly was hearsay, see § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1985), not subject to any of the exceptions to the rule against hearsay.”
Establishes that the trial court committed plain error by admitting inadmissible hearsay testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was charged with engaging a child in sexual activity. He testified that he had been married for thirty-one years and never had sexual relatio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Doyle Thomas Williams, appeals his judgment and sentence. We reverse.
The appellant was charged with engaging a child in sexual activity. At trial, the appellant took the stand on his own behalf and testified on direct examination that he had been married for thirty-one years and that he had never had sexual relations with anyone other than his wife. On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned appellant about an alleged extramarital affair between appellant and his sister-in-law, Catherine Hill. After the appellant denied having had an affair with Catherine Hill, the prosecutor sought to refute appellant’s testimony and corroborate the alleged affair through testimony of appellant’s foster daughter, Selah Lane. Over objection by defense counsel, Selah Lane was permitted to testify for the state in rebuttal that the appellant’s father-in-law, now deceased, had told her that the appellant and Catherine Hill once had an affair of sorts. Defense witnesses, Catherine Hill and appel lant’s wife, Betty Williams, also denied that the appellant had ever had an affair with Catherine Hill. The information regarding the alleged affair was referred to in the state’s closing and rebuttal, arguments. Following deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him within the guideline range to seven years incarceration. This timely appeal followed.
The admission of Selah Lane’s testimony regarding her conversation with appellant’s father-in-law was error as the testimony clearly was hearsay, see § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1985), not subject to any of the exceptions to the rule against hearsay. See §§ 90.803, 90.804, Fla.Stat. (1985). We cannot agree with the state’s contention that the erroneous admission of this testimony was harmless error. Here, the evidence regarding the appellant’s sexual involvement with the alleged victim as well as the evidence regarding his character and sexual propensities in general was conflicting. The appellant’s credibility, therefore, was critical to the effectiveness of his defense. Selah Lane’s testimony, if believed by the jury, would have impeached the appellant’s testimony on his own behalf and reflected negatively on his credibility. The hearsay testimony may have also negatively affected the credibility of appellant’s wife and sister-in-law who testified on appellant’s behalf. The state made reference to the hearsay testimony in its closing and rebuttal arguments. Under these circumstances, we find that the state has not met its burden of showing the error was harmless because we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
We, accordingly, reverse and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.