Background
Shane Robert Marshall received consecutive probation terms after pleading to simple battery, disorderly conduct, and criminal mischief. A special condition barred him from contacting the victim. In June 2025, Marshall told his probation officer that he had not contacted the victim; three days later, he was arrested on new charges involving the same victim.
At the violation-of-probation hearing, the State pursued allegations that Marshall had been untruthful with his officer and had contact with the victim. The probation officer had no personal knowledge of such contact and based the violation report on the new arrest affidavit. Marshall testified that he did not recall whether he had contact with the victim. The circuit court revoked probation, adjudicated him guilty, and imposed 364 days in jail.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District reversed. Marshall’s June 26 denial of contact preceded the alleged June 29 contact underlying his arrest, so no evidence—hearsay or otherwise—showed that his earlier statement to the probation officer was false.
The alleged no-contact violation likewise lacked competent, substantial non-hearsay evidence. The probation officer lacked personal knowledge, while the violation affidavit, violation report, and arrest affidavit were hearsay. Although hearsay may be admitted in a probation-revocation hearing, it cannot alone establish a willful and substantial violation.
Key Takeaways
- A probation revocation cannot rest solely on hearsay evidence.
- A truthful-answer violation requires evidence that the probationer’s statement was false.
- An arrest affidavit alone does not prove a probation violation.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Florida’s relaxed evidentiary rules for probation hearings do not eliminate the State’s obligation to provide competent, substantial evidence. On remand, if Marshall’s tolled probationary period has not expired, the State may file a new violation affidavit based on the same incident.