Jenkins v. State

Citations: 189 So. 3d 866; 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18811; 2015 WL 8950643Docket: No. 4D14-445

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 15, 2015; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ernest Jenkins appeals his conviction for failing to re-register as a sexual predator, contending that the trial court wrongly excluded an out-of-court statement from a stockade employee, which he believed supported his inability to reregister. The court deemed the statement hearsay, but it was intended to demonstrate the effect on Jenkins' belief and actions, not to assert the truth of the employee’s statement. The appellate court found this exclusion to be an error that was not harmless, resulting in a reversal of the conviction. Jenkins also challenged the trial court's denial of his motion for a downward departure sentence; however, the appellate court decided not to address this issue due to its agreement with his primary argument. Jenkins had previously pled guilty to lewd assault in 1994, with adjudication withheld, and was required to reregister bi-annually under Florida law following the enactment of section 943.0435, which mandates registration for sexual offenders. After failing to reregister in May 2012, he was arrested in August 2012, leading to his trial where the state confirmed his failure to comply with registration requirements. During trial, Jenkins claimed he was unable to reregister due to an existing arrest warrant, and although he sought assistance from the Public Defender's Office, he could not afford the fee initially, leading to further complications in his registration process.

Appellant's sole defense at trial was his belief that he could not register as a sex offender due to being turned away from the stockade because of an outstanding warrant. During closing arguments, both sides addressed this belief, but the jury was unable to hear certain excluded testimony, leading to Appellant’s conviction for failing to re-register. On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by sustaining a hearsay objection to a statement intended to demonstrate his belief and actions regarding re-registration, not to assert the truth of the stockade's policies concerning outstanding warrants. The State argues that the statement was hearsay and that any error was harmless, as Appellant's defense was adequately presented during the trial. Florida Statutes define hearsay as a statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but if a statement is offered for a different purpose, it is not considered hearsay and may be admissible if relevant. The excerpt references the Krampert case, where a similarly charged defendant was prevented from testifying about an officer's statements that informed his belief regarding registration requirements. The appellate court ruled that the statements were not hearsay since they were offered to explain the defendant's subsequent actions, establishing that the knowledge element of the crime was relevant to his defense.

Testimony indicating that the defendant was granted permission to take a baseball card collection to file a fraudulent insurance claim was erroneously excluded, as it was relevant to the defense in Hansman v. State. In Duncan v. State, a seller's statement regarding the legitimacy of stolen tire rims was deemed admissible to demonstrate its effect on the buyer's suspicions. Similarly, the Appellant's excluded testimony about statements from a stockade employee was not hearsay but relevant to explain his decision to leave without registering, as it was intended to show the impact on the Appellant rather than to assert the truth of the statement itself. The jury should have assessed the credibility of the Appellant’s testimony. The State's argument that the exclusion was harmless failed, as it did not prove that the error did not influence the verdict. The court clarified that statements made by counsel are not evidence and emphasized that the trial court had already acknowledged the substance of the evidence during sidebar discussions. Consequently, the error was not harmless, warranting a reversal and remand for a new trial. The State's additional argument regarding preservation of the issue for appeal was dismissed, as the necessary substance of the evidence had been sufficiently articulated during trial.