Title: Demetrice Armicle McNeal v. State of Florida

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC13-650 
____________ 
 
DEMETRICE ARMICLE MCNEAL,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Respondent. 
 
[June 5, 2014] 
 
QUINCE, J. 
We have for review McNeal v. State, 109 So. 3d 268, 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 
2013), in which the First District Court of Appeal found that satisfying the 
foundational requirements under the past recollection recorded exception to 
hearsay need not come from the declarant’s testimony.1  At the time that the First 
 
1.  The past recollection recorded exception provides as follows:  
 
A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness 
once had knowledge, but now has insufficient recollection to enable 
the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made 
by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory and 
to reflect that knowledge correctly.  A party may read into evidence a 
memorandum or record when it is admitted, but no such memorandum 
or record is admissible as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse 
                                          
 
District issued its decision below, Polite v. State, 41 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 
2010), quashed, 116 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 2013), was pending review in this Court.  We 
have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. 
We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Polite, in which 
we held that the past recollection recorded exception requires the witness to 
indicate that the events were fresh in his or her mind when the statement was 
made, as well as attest to the accuracy of the memorandum or record.  Polite v. 
State, 116 So. 3d 270, 278 (Fla. 2013).  We then issued an order in the instant case 
directing Respondent to show cause why this Court should not accept jurisdiction, 
summarily quash the First District’s decision in McNeal, and remand for 
reconsideration in light of our decision in Polite.  Respondent filed a response 
acknowledging that the victims in both the instant case and in Polite did not vouch 
at trial for the accuracy or correctness of their written statements.  Respondent 
contends, however, that this Court should decline to accept jurisdiction because the 
district court below found that even if the publishing of the statement was error, it 
was harmless.  Petitioner filed a reply, asserting that the decision below should be 
quashed and that we should remand because the district court applied an incorrect 
standard in finding that the error was harmless. 
party. 
§ 90.803(5), Fla. Stat. (2013). 
 
- 2 - 
                                                                                                                                        
Upon consideration of the Respondent’s response, and Petitioner’s reply 
thereto, we grant the petition for review, quash the district court’s decision in 
McNeal, and remand this case to the First District for reconsideration in light of 
this Court’s decision in Polite, and a proper harmless error analysis under State v. 
DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), if applicable. 
It is so ordered. 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
CANADY, J., concurs in result. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Direct 
Conflict of Decisions  
 
First District – Case No. 1D11-6875 
 
(Escambia County)  
 
Diana L. Johnson of Johnson and Lufrano, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida,   
 
for Petitioner 
  
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Criminal 
Appeals, and Donna Antoinette Gerace, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, 
Florida,  
 
for Respondent 
 
- 3 -