Opinion ID: 1912218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: hearsay statements of lopez and hegarty

Text: In addition to the erroneous limitation of cross-examination of the key State witness and error in excluding the prior testimony of Pardo in the guilt and penalty phases, we also agree with Garcia's claim that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements against him during the guilt phase. Part of the State's case against Garcia included placing in evidence that one of the victims, Amador, was distrustful of Garcia. The jury heard this evidence through the hearsay testimony given by Allen Lopez as to what Amador had previously stated, thus leaving Garcia unable to cross-examine the declarant. During the State's direct examination of Lopez, over defense objection, the trial court allowed the following colloquy: Q: Mr. Lopez, what did Mr. Amador tell you ...? A: Somebody had been at his house with cash to buy a kilo of cocaine. Q: Did he tell you who? A: Yes. Q: What name did he use? A: Rolly. Q: Did you know this person yourself Rolly? A: No. Q: And what did Mr. Amador tell you? A: He wanted me to be there with him because he didn't want to do the deal by himself. Q: Did he say why? A: He didn't trust him. Q: Did you show up to help him with that deal? A: No. Q: Did Mr. Amador say what happened to that deal? A: He didn't want to do it by him himself and it had been scheduled to be done another time. It appears from the record that the trial court allowed these statements into evidence based on the statement against interest exception to the hearsay rule, section 90.804(2)(c), Florida Statutes, which provides: (c) Statement against interest.A statement which, at the time of its making, was so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest or tended to subject the declarant to liability or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, so that a person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless he or she believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is inadmissible, unless corroborating circumstances show the trustworthiness of the statement. However, there is nothing about the statement regarding Amador's mistrust of Garcia that was against Amador's penal or proprietary interest. Moreover, a homicide victim's state of mind prior to the fatal event generally is neither at issue nor probative of any material issue raised in the murder prosecution. Woods v. State, 733 So.2d 980, 987 (Fla.1999). Further as we stated in Stoll v. State, 762 So.2d 870, 874 (Fla.2000), [l]ikewise, a victim's statements cannot be used to prove the defendant's state of mind. See also Downs v. State, 574 So.2d 1095, 1098 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, Lopez's statements did not fall within this exception to the hearsay rule, nor did they fall within any other exception. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Lopez concerning Amador's statements that he was mistrustful of Garcia and did not want to be with him by himself. Additional error occurred during the direct examination of John Hegarty. Hegarty testified that he warned Amador not to deal with Garcia [b]ecause personally I just didn't trust him and I figured he was going to get ripped off by him. Hegarty stated, I called him [Amador] up and I told him to beware of Rolly and the deal with the white horse and that-because he told me he was making a deal with Rolly that week. And I told him that night, and I said make sure you get help or backup or whatever. Hegarty also testified that after Amador was killed, Lopez came out to the yard and he talked to me and he says, `Rolando killed Mario.' In reply, Hegarty said, I made a response and I saidI cussed a little bit and everything and I said, `Well, I warned him, I warned him.' The conversations between Hegarty and Amador also constituted inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any hearsay exception. Moreover, the testimony of Hegarty that he did not trust Garcia was not relevant or material to any issue in the murder prosecution. The only possible purpose of this testimony was to prove that Garcia acted in conformity with Hegarty's impression that he distrusted Garcia and warned Amador to be aware of him. This evidence, in addition to being impermissible hearsay, amounts to no more than improper bad character evidence. See Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074, 1082 (Fla.2000). We thus conclude that the trial court erred in admitting this testimony.