We agree with the defendant that the lab report was not admissible into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. See Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that, at a probation revocation hearing, the business records exception to the hearsay rule is inapplicable when no one from the lab testifies as to knowledge of testing and reporting procedure; therefore the lab report is inadmissible). The lab report is nevertheless admissible as hearsay at a probation violation hearing. Isaac v. State, 971 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). However, hearsay alone is an insufficient basis upon which to revoke probation.
Rumpole grumbles: Outside of certain theories in Quantum Mechanics in which something can possibly and simultaneously exist in two opposite states (ie., the window is open and closed, or in Schrodinger's cat, the cat is both alive and dead in the box) this decision is contrary to the fundamental laws of the universe. Either a lab report is admissible in a PVH or it is not. It cannot be both. Yes it can. (See how confusing that is?)
* we express our opinion only as to appellate courts on or near the FIU campus and not as to the 3rd DCA vs. any other appellate courts.