Deparvine v. State
995 So.2d 351 (2008) (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Florida's spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule, § 90.803(1), does not require a startling or exciting event; a statement is admissible if it describes or explains an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving it, or immediately thereafter, under circumstances that do not indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
Facts:
- Richard 'Rick' Van Dusen and Karla Van Dusen placed several newspaper ads to sell their 1971 Chevrolet Cheyenne pickup truck.
- William James Deparvine responded to an ad and expressed interest in purchasing the truck.
- On November 25, 2003, the Van Dusens' neighbor saw Rick driving the truck with Karla following him in their Jeep as they left their home.
- During this drive, Karla was on a 37-minute phone call with her mother, Billie Ferris.
- In the conversation, Karla told her mother, "I'm following Rick and the guy that bought the truck. He knows where to get the paperwork done tonight," and that the man "has got cash."
- Cell phone records tracked the Van Dusens' travel from their home in Tierra Verde northeast towards the Oldsmar area.
- The next morning, November 26, 2003, the bodies of Rick and Karla were found on a dirt road near Oldsmar; both had been shot.
- The Van Dusens' truck was found parked at Deparvine's apartment complex, and six blood stains on the steering wheel of the Van Dusens' Jeep matched Deparvine's DNA, with one stain being a mixture of Deparvine's and Rick's DNA.
Procedural Posture:
- William James Deparvine was charged by a grand jury with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed carjacking.
- The case was tried before a jury in a Florida trial court.
- During the trial, the court admitted, over defense objection, testimony from a victim's mother regarding statements the victim made on the phone moments before her murder.
- The jury found Deparvine guilty of first-degree murder for both victims and of armed carjacking.
- In the penalty phase, the jury recommended a sentence of death for both murders by a vote of 8-4.
- The trial court judge sentenced Deparvine to death.
- Deparvine filed a direct appeal of his convictions and sentences to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida's spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule require a startling or exciting event for a declarant's statement describing a contemporaneous event to be admissible?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. Florida's spontaneous statement exception does not require a startling or exciting event. The court traced the history of the 'res gestae' doctrine, explaining that it evolved into two distinct hearsay exceptions: the 'excited utterance' (§ 90.803(2)), which requires a startling event, and the 'spontaneous statement' (§ 90.803(1)), which does not. The court held that the spontaneous statement exception, akin to the federal 'present sense impression' rule, derives its trustworthiness from the contemporaneity of the statement with the perceived event, which negatives the likelihood of conscious misrepresentation. Applying this standard, the court found Karla's statement, "I'm following Rick and the guy that bought the truck," was admissible because it described an event she was perceiving at that moment. However, the court found it was error to admit her subsequent statements, "He knows where to get the paperwork done tonight" and "He's got cash," because they relayed historical information rather than describing a present perception. This error was deemed harmless given the strength of the properly admitted portion of the statement and other evidence, such as Deparvine's DNA at the scene.
Dissenting - Lewis, J.
Yes. The majority's analysis discards the longstanding requirement of spontaneity, which is intrinsic to both the spontaneous statement and excited utterance exceptions. The dissent argued that Florida law has always required an unusual or startling event to trigger a reflexive, unreflecting statement, which is the basis for the exception's reliability. By removing this requirement, the majority turns the exception into a rule admitting any casual narrative of a mundane event, contrary to legislative intent demonstrated by the statute's title, 'spontaneous statement,' rather than 'present sense impression.' This change ignores a century of Florida precedent and dangerously broadens the hearsay exception to include potentially unreliable out-of-court statements.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for clarifying a key distinction in Florida evidence law, formally separating the 'spontaneous statement' from the 'excited utterance' exception. By explicitly holding that a startling event is not required for a spontaneous statement, the Florida Supreme Court aligns this exception more closely with the Federal Rules of Evidence's 'present sense impression' rule. This lowers the bar for admitting statements describing mundane or ordinary events, so long as they are made contemporaneously with the declarant's perception. The ruling provides clearer guidance to trial courts and will likely increase the admissibility of such real-time descriptions in both civil and criminal cases.
Unlock the full brief for Deparvine v. State