Opinion ID: 2993972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hearsay Statements/Confrontation Clause

Text: - 24 - Cannon asserts that a significant portion of Mr. Neel’s testimony is inadmissible hearsay and that the trial court erred in permitting its introduction into evidence. Cannon also alleges, in one sentence of his initial brief, that this testimony violated his right of confrontation under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Each of Cannon’s claims will be addressed separately below. A trial court’s decision to admit evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Johnston v. State, 863 So. 2d 271, 278 (Fla. 2003). However, the question of whether a statement is hearsay is a matter of law and is subject to de novo review on appeal. Burkey v. State, 922 So. 2d 1033, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010). Rather than indicating the specific statements to which he objects, Cannon has provided us with only a general summary of Mr. Neel’s testimony. We thus deny most of this claim as insufficiently pled. See, e.g., Wyatt v. State, 78 So. 3d 512, 521 & n.6 (Fla. 2011) (denying claims as insufficiently pled because, in challenging gruesome photos, counsel failed to specifically address which photos he was challenging and in challenging the jury instructions, counsel failed to discuss which specific instructions were allegedly erroneous or what specific challenges trial counsel should have raised); Ferrell v. State, 29 So. 3d 959, 976 (Fla. 2010) (denying - 25 - challenge that counsel erroneously waived the defendant’s presence at all pretrial proceedings as insufficiently pled where defendant failed to identify any critical stage of his trial from which he was involuntarily absent). Because we have identified three statements during Mr. Neel’s trial testimony to which Cannon objected, we choose to address that portion of his claim. The three statements are (1) Mr. Morgan telling Mr. Neel that Cannon had corn to sell, (2) Mr. Morgan prepaying for a second purchase of corn from Cannon,14 and (3) Mr. Morgan telling Mr. Neel about Mr. Morgan’s “aggravation” in dealing with Cannon. Cannon is only entitled to relief if the admission of these statements was erroneous and not harmless. Harmless error is error for which “there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986). Cannon is not entitled to relief as to any of these statements because their admission into evidence was harmless. Even without these three details, the jury still heard that Mr. Morgan and Mr. Neel met Cannon at a gas station and that Mr. Neel understood the purpose of this meeting to be completing a purchase of corn. Further, Cannon was identified as the seller by Mr. Neel’s properly admitted testimony, which demonstrated that Cannon was the guiding force behind this 14. We note that Cannon objected to this statement not as hearsay, but on the grounds of a lack of foundation or personal knowledge. - 26 - transaction. Upon meeting at the gas station, Cannon had to convince Mr. Morgan to let McMillian, Cannon’s codefendant, ride with them; Cannon directed Mr. Morgan to drive to a remote, wooded area; and Cannon not only brought a knife with him on this ride, but also used that knife to initiate the attack by stabbing Mr. Neel in the neck. Therefore, there is no reasonable possibility that the admission of these three statements contributed to the conviction. Cannon also argues that the admission of Mr. Neel’s testimony violates his right of confrontation because the statements were testimonial under Crawford. However, the statements at issue here are not testimonial in nature. They were not “made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” Franklin v. State, 965 So. 2d 79, 90 (Fla. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). They are simply nontestimonial statements to a friend about trivial daily matters, not involving any potential criminal proceeding. Cf. id. at 91 (citing cases and holding that victim’s spontaneous statements to friend after being shot were not testimonial). Accordingly, Cannon is not entitled to relief.