KENDRICK STAFFORD, 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.
Appellant Stafford challenged his conviction for dealing in stolen property, claiming the trial court erred by excluding his exculpatory statement and refusing to instruct the jury on petit theft as a lesser included offense. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the exculpatory statement constituted inadmissible hearsay and that petit theft instruction was properly denied because its elements were not included in the charging document.
The trial court did not err in excluding the exculpatory statement as inadmissible hearsay, and did not err in refusing to instruct on petit theft as a lesser included offense because the elements of petit theft were not included in the charging document despite evidence of theft being submitted at trial.
[1] A defendant's out-of-court exculpatory statements are inadmissible hearsay when offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
[2] A trial court does not err in refusing to allow a defendant to introduce his own exculpatory statement when the state has not opened the door to such testimony.
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“When a defendant seeks to introduce his own out-of-court exculpatory statement for the truth of the matter stated, it is inadmissible hearsay.”
Establishes the legal principle that defendant's own exculpatory statements are hearsay and inadmissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Stafford pawned jewelry that had been taken from a home where he was moving furniture. When confronted by his work supervisor about the stol…
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 Charging Document cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Appellant challenges his conviction for dealing in stolen property based upon his pawning of jewelry taken from a home in which he was moving furniture. He raises two issues. First, he claims that the court erred in refusing to allow a witness to testify to an exculpatory statement made by appellant. Second, he objects to the trial court’s failure to give an instruction on petit theft as a lesser included offense. We affirm, holding that the exculpatory statement was hearsay and inadmissible. We further conclude that the court did not err in refusing to instruct on petit theft, a category two offense of dealing in stolen property, because the elements of the crime were not included within the charging document.
During trial, appellant sought to cross-examine his work supervisor regarding an exculpatory statement appellant made to him when confronted with the supervisor’s accusation that appellant had stolen items from the home. A defendant’s out-of-court exculpatory statements are inadmissible hearsay. Cotton v. State, 763 So. 2d 437, 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“When a defendant seeks to introduce his own out-of-court exculpatory statement for the truth of the matter stated, it is inadmissible hearsay.”). Appellant claims, however, that the state opened the door to such testimony in the direct examination of the supervisor. Having examined the testimony, we disagree that the state opened the door or that the exculpatory statement was necessary to correct any misleading impression. No reversible error occurred.
In instructing the jury, the trial court refused to instruct on petit theft, a category two lesser included offense of dealing in stolen property. Appellant claims this constitutes reversible error. We disagree. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.510 provides:
On an indictment or information on which the defendant is to be tried for any offense the jury may convict the defendant of:
(b) any offense that as a matter of law is a necessarily included offense or a lesser included offense of the offense charged in the indictment or information and is supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct on any lesser included offense as to which there is no evidence.
A jury instruction on a permissive lesser included offense is allowed where the elements of the lesser included offense are included in the charging document and some evidence of the lesser included offense is submitted at trial. See State v. Espinosa, 686 So. 2d 1345 (Fla.1996). While there was evidence of theft submitted at trial, the charging document does not contain the elements of petit theft. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the request for the petit theft instruction.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, C.J., and TAYLOR, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neals v. State, 962 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…original)); Patten v. State, 492 So. 2d 748, 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (affirming conviction of grand theft without regard to whether defendant “was the actual one to ‘take’ the items”). How [*928] ever, as we recently recognized in Stafford v. State, 956 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), the standard for reversible error is not met where “the elements of the crime were not included within the charging document.” Here, as in Stafford, the elements of theft are not charged. Therefore, the judgment and sentence ar…
-
Gardner v. State, 987 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…truction on a lesser included offense is warranted only when (1) the elements of the lesser included offense are included in the charging document, and (2) there is some evidence of the lesser included offense introduced at trial. Stafford v. State, 956 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing State v. Espinosa, 686 So. 2d 1345 (Fla.1996)). In Neals v. State, the defendant was charged with dealing in stolen property and the trial court refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of theft. 9…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. Espinosa, 686 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1996)
- Cotton v. State, 763 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)