Marshall v. State
The Fifth DCA reversed a probation revocation because the State's evidence of two alleged violations—untruthfulness to the probation officer and prohibited contact with the victim—rested entirely on hearsay (the new arrest affidavit and derivative VOP documents) with no corroborating non-hearsay evidence. The court reiterated that while hearsay is admissible at VOP hearings, a revocation cannot be based solely on hearsay that would be inadmissible as substantive evidence elsewhere.
Key facts
- Marshall was on probation with conditions including truthfulness to the probation officer and no contact with the victim.
- The State filed a violation of probation (VOP) affidavit alleging Marshall made untruthful statements to the probation officer and had prohibited contact with the victim, based solely on evidence from a new arrest affidavit.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion reinforces the well-established but frequently litigated rule that VOP revocations cannot rest solely on hearsay such as arrest affidavits or probation officer reports derived from them—defense counsel can… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.