## Facts

- Michael Simmons was a juvenile accused of committing a theft and was proceeded against in juvenile court on a delinquency charge.
- At the adjudicatory hearing, the judge admitted into evidence a letter a state probation officer wrote to the juvenile judge.
- The letter summarized the probation officer’s investigation of the alleged theft.
- The letter reported statements attributed to Simmons and to various alleged witnesses, as related to the probation officer.
- The letter also described an incident in which a boy appeared at the police station and asked whether police were still looking for the “two boys” who had been with Simmons when the theft occurred; when told the probation officer might want to speak with him, the boy ran away.
- The State offered the letter as proof of the charged conduct rather than limiting it to background information.
- Based on the evidence received at the adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated Simmons delinquent and committed him to state custody.
- Simmons appealed, arguing the letter was hearsay and that admitting and relying on it denied him the ability to confront and cross-examine the sources of the accusations contained in the letter.

## Issues

1. Whether a juvenile court may admit and rely on a probation officer’s unsworn investigative letter containing multiple levels of hearsay as substantive evidence to prove the delinquent act at the adjudicatory phase.
2. Whether using such hearsay in adjudication, without producing the declarants for confrontation and cross-examination, requires reversal of the delinquency finding.

## Decision

- The appellate court held that the probation officer’s letter was inadmissible hearsay when offered to prove Simmons committed the charged theft at the adjudicatory hearing.
- The court concluded that reliance on the letter as proof of delinquency deprived Simmons of a fair adjudication because the letter’s reported declarants were not subject to confrontation and cross-examination.
- The delinquency adjudication and resulting commitment were reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Juveniles facing delinquency adjudication that may result in loss of liberty are entitled to due process protections associated with an adjudicatory hearing, including confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses.
- At the adjudicatory phase, the State must prove the charged delinquent act using competent evidence; unsworn investigative summaries that repeat out-of-court statements are generally inadmissible absent a recognized hearsay exception.
- Written reports prepared for the court (such as probation or social-history materials) may have a place in dispositional decision-making, but they cannot be used as a substitute for live, testable proof of the alleged delinquent act at adjudication.
- When the adjudication materially rests on inadmissible hearsay rather than admissible testimony or other competent evidence, the error is not cured and reversal is required.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Simmons*, the appellate court reversed a juvenile delinquency adjudication for theft because the juvenile court admitted and relied on a probation officer’s investigative letter—containing layered hearsay statements from Simmons and others—as substantive proof at the adjudicatory hearing, without providing confrontation and cross-examination of the declarants, and remanded for further proceedings based on proper evidentiary standards.


State v. Simmons, 299 So. 2d 906 (1974)