CopyCited 82 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1994 WL 137938
...Leggett (the requirements of the statute must be met); Jaggers (a court must specifically set forth reasons indicating the reliability of the statements); see also Hopkins v. State,
632 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1994) (failure to make specific findings of fact under section
92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), which section impacts the same constitutional guarantees as those at issue here, constitutes reversible error)....
CopyCited 65 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1994 WL 11604
...We have for review Hopkins v. State,
608 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question as being one of great public importance: Does a trial court commit fundamental error by failing to make the findings required by section
92.54(5), Florida Statutes, prior to allowing a child witness to testify by means of closed circuit television? Id....
...We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, and answer the question in the negative. James Harvey Hopkins was charged with three counts of sexual battery on a child less than twelve years old and one count of lewd and lascivious assault on the same child. Pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), [1] the State filed a motion to present the trial testimony of the five-year-old victim by means of closed circuit television....
...Michael DeMaria, a copy of which is attached. On appeal, Hopkins argued that the trial court's findings did not satisfy the statutory requirement that "[t]he court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section." Section 92.54(5), Fla....
...ailed to make a specific objection. Hopkins,
608 So.2d at 37. However, recognizing that no objection is required when a trial court commits fundamental error, the district court certified the issue of whether failure to make the findings required by section
92.54(5) constitutes fundamental error....
..."[F]or an error to be so fundamental that it can be raised for the first time on appeal, the error must be basic to the judicial decision under review and equivalent to a denial of due process." State v. Johnson,
616 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 1993). We find that failure to make the statutory findings required by section
92.54 *1375 does not rise to this level....
...In the instant case, the district court held that Hopkins' "very general objection," which was "`couched in terms of a confrontation rights argument,'" was not sufficient to preserve for review the issue of whether the trial court's findings satisfied the requirements of section 92.54(5)....
...testimony outside the presence Under the circumstances of this case, we find that this objection properly preserved the issue for appellate review. Although the objection did not specifically address the sufficiency of the factual findings under section 92.54, it properly raised the issue of Hopkins' constitutional right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI; see also art. I, § 16(a), Fla. Const. ("In all criminal prosecutions the accused ... shall have the right ... to confront at trial adverse witnesses... ."). As the district court correctly noted, the procedure authorized by section 92.54 impacts a criminal defendant's right to "a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact," a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause....
...mits videotaping of child's testimony, for purposes of admitting out-of-court statements of child victim of sexual abuse pursuant to hearsay exception) (quoting Chambers v. State,
504 So.2d 476, 477-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)). The procedure outlined in section
92.54(5) is the means by which the court determines if the state's interest in protecting the child witness is so great as to excuse compliance with the right to confrontation....
...Craig , there must be case-specific findings of necessity in order to dispense with physical, face-to-face confrontation at trial.
497 U.S. at 855,
110 S.Ct. at 3168; see also State v. Ford,
626 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 1993). The case-specific findings mandated by section
92.54(5) are "`precisely what renders [the] statute constitutional, because the statute is closely tailored to protect the child victim only in those particular circumstances [where] it is deemed necessary.'" Leggett v. State,
565 So.2d 315, 318 (Fla. 1990) (quoting with approval Jaggers v. State,
536 So.2d 321, 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)). [2] Thus, the factual findings required by section
92.54 are necessarily related to the constitutional right to confrontation. Cf. Myles v. State,
602 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 1992) (discussing the interrelation of the findings required by Maryland v. Craig and those required by section
92.54); see also Feller v....
...ntinue arguing over the legal sufficiency of the court's factual basis for its ruling. Hopkins,
608 So.2d at 38 (Zehmer, J., dissenting). Turning to the merits of Hopkins' claim, we find the trial court's findings did not satisfy the requirements of section
92.54(5)....
...The trial court merely adopted and ratified the hearing testimony of the mother and the psychiatrist without specifying each evidentiary fact that supported its ruling. This ignores the statute's clear and unequivocal directive that the court "make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling." Section 92.54(5)....
...87 U.S. at 1022,
108 S.Ct. at 2803. In the instant case, neither the victim's testimony by closed circuit television nor her out-of-court statements were properly admitted due to the court's failure to make the specific findings required by sections
92.54 and
90.803(23)....
...We quash the decision below in part and approve it in part. We remand this cause with directions to reverse the judgment of conviction as to two counts and order a new trial. It is so ordered. BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), provides that a child under the age of 16 who is a victim of or witness to a sexual offense may testify outside the courtroom by means of closed-circuit television....
...t television "upon a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court or that such victim or witness is unavailable as defined in s.
90.804(1)." §
92.54(1). The court is also required to "make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section." §
92.54(5)....
CopyCited 38 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1994 WL 137846
...However, the court certified the questions of whether failure to make the specific findings constitutes fundamental error and what is the proper remedy for failure to make the findings. This Court recently addressed the same question of fundamental error as it relates to the specific findings required by section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes....
...tness who is under the age of 16 would suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if ... required to testify in open court ... the trial court may order the videotaping of the testimony of the victim or witness in a sexual abuse case... . [2] Section
92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), permits a child under the age of sixteen who is a victim of or witness to a sexual offense to testify via closed circuit television. Section
92.54 is almost identical to section
92.53 in requiring a finding "that there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court." §
92.54(1)....
CopyCited 22 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 12317, 1993 WL 148947
...The counselor spoke generally about Cathy’s personality and reaction to her alleged abuse and the events that followed. (Tr. 81-84) When asked if she thought that Cathy would suffer at least moderate emotional trauma or harm if required to testify in open court — the approximate language of Fla.Stat. § 92.54(1) (1987) 2 — the counsel- *718 or answered in the affirmative....
...est of protecting child witnesses.” Id. at 1025 ,
108 S.Ct. at 2805 . Justice O’Connor cited the Florida statute at issue in this case as an example of a state statute that required such findings. Id. 2. Applying Coy A plain reading of Fla.Stat. §
92.54 (1987) reveals a two-part legislative scheme....
...vision if, after a hearing, the court makes a “finding that there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court” or that the child is unavailable. Fla.Stat. § 92.54(1) (1987). This procedure contemplates that the defendant and child may be in the same room during the child’s testimony. Fla. Stat. § 92.54 (3) (1987)....
...7 Of course, when the defendant and the child witness are in the same room during the child’s testimony, the defendant’s right to face-to-face confrontation is not a concern. See Coy,
487 U.S. at 1023 ,
108 S.Ct. at 2804 (O’Con-nor, J., concurring). The second aspect of section
92.54 allows the court to require the defendant to stay in the courtroom and watch on television while the child testifies from another room. 8 There is no indication in the statute as to when the defendant must remain in the courtroom or what separate judicial findings are a necessary prerequisite to such action. Clearly, section
92.54(4) affects the defendant’s confrontation rights....
...Rather, the inquiry in this case was little more than the legislative presumption of harm rejected by the Court in Coy . The motion, hearing and findings in this case appear from the record to have been merely a rote exercise to conform with the formality of section 92.54, although we are not convinced the court’s findings were even sufficient to satisfy the statute....
...that warrants subordinating the constitutional preference for face-to-face confrontation. Coy,
487 U.S. at 1024 ,
108 S.Ct. at 2805 . No such examination was conducted in this case. It is true that Justice O’Connor specifically mentioned Fla.Stat. §
92.54(4) (1987) as a statute that might be adequate to satisfy constitutional scrutiny. Unfortunately, that dicta may have lulled some into a false sense of security. Most obviously, section
92.54(4), on its face, does not require any showing whatsoever to justify keeping the defendant in the courtroom while the child testifies by television from another room....
...tion of the operative statutory language does not strike us as the sort of “specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling” contemplated by the statute. Fla.Stat. § 92.-54(5) (1987). Justice O’Connor’s reference to section 92.54 in Coy was undoubtedly premised on an assumption that the trial court’s inquiry would comply with the requirements of subsection 92.54(5), that the court “make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section.” Such an analysis, if actually conducted by the state trial court, could rise to the level of a “case-specific f...
...rcome the defendant’s constitutional rights. Coy,
487 U.S. at 1025 ,
108 S.Ct. at 2805 (O’Connor, J., concurring). We do not consider the state trial court’s mere recitation of the statutory language in this case to comply with the dictates of section
92.54(5)....
...the state affords Cumbie a new trial within a reasonable period of time. 1 . The state's "Motion for Use of Closed Circuit Television” did not mention the need for Cathy to testify outside the presence of the defendant. (R. 8, p. 45) 2 . Fla.Stat. § 92.54 (1987) provides: (1) Upon motion and hearing in camera and upon a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court or that such victim or witness is unavailable as defined in s....
...the videotape equipment, an interpreter, and some other person who, in the opinion of the court, contributes to the well-being of the child and who will not be a witness in the case may be in the room during the recording of the testimony. Fla.Stat. §
92.54(3) (1987) (emphasis added). 8 .See Fla.Stat. §
92.54(4) (1987), supra note 2. 9 . We recognize that the trial court did not have the benefit of Coy during Cumbie’s trial. 10 . See Myles v. State,
602 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla.1992) (specifically acknowledging that compliance with §
92.54 would not necessarily satisfy Maryland v....
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1992 WL 156899
...e years of age. At the subsequent jury trial, the court granted Myles the right to act as co-counsel, and also allowed one of the child-victims to testify via closed-circuit television from the judge's chambers. This last ruling was made pursuant to section 92.54(4), Florida Statutes (1987), which provides: During the child's testimony by closed circuit television, the court may require the defendant to view the testimony from the courtroom....
...The Craig requirements are not precisely the same as those provided in the child-witness statute. The statute, for example, requires a substantial likelihood of at least moderate emotional or mental harm [4] if the child is required to testify in open court, § 92.54(1), Fla....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 641810
...mation that was constitutionally impermissible. Dooley raises as another point on appeal that the trial judge erred in allowing B.D. to testify via closed circuit television. The state concedes the trial court failed to make the findings required by section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Upon retrial, the trial court should follow the requirements of section 92.54(1) before B.D....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 570217
...s testimony outside the presence Under the circumstances of this case, we find that this objection properly preserved the issue for appellate review. Although the objection did not specifically address the sufficiency of the factual findings under section 92.54, it properly raised the issue of Hopkins' constitutional right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12724, 2015 WL 4480919
...foreign court, requesting that the foreign court (1) take evidence from a specific person within
the foreign jurisdiction . . . and (2) return the testimony . . . for use in a pending case.” Black’s
Law Dictionary 988 (9th ed. 2009); see also 22 C.F.R. § 92.54....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1201597
...Except in cases of fundamental error, this court will not consider an issue unless it was specifically raised as the legal basis for the objection in the trial court.") In Hopkins v. State,
632 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1994), Hopkins challenged both the sufficiency of the factual findings under section
92.54, Florida Statutes (1989) (the statute allowing a child to testify outside of the courtroom after the trial court has made specific findings of fact) and the sufficiency of the factual findings under section
90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989)....
...Prior to the child's testimony, Hopkins objected to the child's being permitted to testify outside the presence of the jury and the defendant. Id. at 1375. The court held that "[a]lthough the objection did not specifically address the sufficiency of the factual findings under section 92.54, it properly raised the issue of Hopkins' constitutional right `to be confronted with the witnesses against him.'" Id. (quoting Amend. VI, U.S. Const.); Fla. R.App. P. 9.800(n). The court also held that "the factual findings required by section 92.54 are necessarily related to the constitutional right to confrontation." Id....
...ved. We conclude that Hopkins is distinguishable from the instant case because the holding in Hopkins was predicated on the defendant's assertion of his confrontation rights. The Hopkins court first addressed the trial court's lack of findings under section 92.54 and held that the defendant's confrontation clause objection encompassed the trial court's lack of findings as required under the statutory procedures intended to protect the defendant's right to confrontation....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 34577
...Testimony as to prior similar acts was thus relevant and material as to these issues, and properly received into evidence. In allowing appellant's stepdaughter to testify by closed circuit television outside of appellant's physical presence the court complied with the requirements of section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes, and made the necessary findings regarding emotional or mental harm to the stepdaughter....
...Unlike the procedure which the United States Supreme Court rejected in Coy v. Iowa, ___ U.S. ___,
108 S.Ct. 2798,
101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988), the present case involves individualized findings as to the necessity for protecting the particular witness. The concurring opinion in Coy expressly cited section
92.54, Florida Statutes, as an example of an appropriate procedure for effectuating society's interest in protecting child witnesses. The court fully complied with the requirements of section
92.54 in the present case, and appellant's stepdaughter was properly allowed to testify by closed circuit television....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 295437
...defense also argued in substance that the child witness was not "unavailable" for purposes of subsection
90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989); defendant contended that the child could testify by closed circuit television pursuant to the procedure of section
92.54, Florida Statutes (1989)....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
of courts towards each other." 22 C.F.R. §
92.54 . But as the government explained at trial
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 534980
...Gen., and Angelica D. Zayas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and LEVY, JJ. PER CURIAM. The State concedes that the trial court made insufficient findings of fact before allowing the victim to testify by closed-circuit television. See § 92.54(5), Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 105518
...Further, appellant was given an opportunity to communicate with his lawyer before his lawyer cross examined the child victim. We find no error in appellant's third contention. The trial court neither violated the express language nor principles of Section 92.54(4), Florida Statutes (1989)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 171600
...Appellant challenges his five-count conviction for lewd and lascivious assault and sexual battery on his six-year-old daughter. Three points are asserted as error: (1) the trial court failed to make the specific findings on the record, required by section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes (1989), as a predicate for allowing the minor victim to testify before a jury via closed circuit television, (2) the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on count III of the five-count information should hav...
...child to testify via television. In support of his ruling the judge stated, on the record: As to the second argument, the use of closed circuit television in proceedings involving sexual offenses against victims under the age of 16, Florida Statute 92.54(1), I'm going to order the use of the closed circuit television to enable the victim to testify outside the presence of her father because I find specifically that there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm [if] require[d] ... to testify in open court... . We need not decide whether the trial court's on-the-record findings contained the specificity required by section 92.54(5), in that neither the physician's fact-specific *1015 testimony to that effect, which the court adopted, nor the trial judge's findings were contemporaneously challenged for competency or sufficiency....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 37419
...number of state statutes, our cases suggest that the strictures of the Confrontation Clause may give way to the compelling state interest of protecting child witnesses."
108 S.Ct. at 2805 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Justice O'Connor cited Section
92.54, Florida Statutes (1987), authorizing a child abuse witness to testify by closed-circuit television, as one of the state statutes which properly requires a case-specific finding. We agree entirely with Justice O'Connor's analysis. The question in the instant case therefore becomes whether an exception to the constitutional right of physical confrontation namely, compliance with Section
92.54, Florida Statutes (1987) has been shown on this record....
...he immediate presence of the defendant provided the trial court (1) makes a case-specific finding that "there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court," § 92.54(1), Fla. Stat. (1987), and (2) makes "specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its [above-stated] ruling," § 92.54(5), Fla....
...would suffer "at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court," made no case-specific finding to that effect, and made no findings of fact on the record to support such a case-specific ruling all of which are required by Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1987) in order to allow a child abuse victim to testify via closed-circuit television....
...ng of necessity required by the above statute. Indeed, the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment presupposes that a witness will have precisely such an emotional experience as an incentive for telling the truth. This being so, it is clear that Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1987), was not complied with below, and, accordingly, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated by allowing C.S....
...824, 828,
17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), and, accordingly, reverse and remand the cause for a new trial. Upon remand, however, the state may, if it chooses, seek to allow C.S. to testify via closed-circuit television provided the requirements established by Section
92.54, Florida Statutes (1987), as interpreted by this opinion, are followed....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 116636
...rights of all interested parties, including appellant and the child victim, would be served by a new trial. [3] This court has previously certified to the supreme court the question of whether the failure to make findings under a companion statute, section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes (1989) (allowing closed circuit television testimony by a child abuse victim), constitutes fundamental error....
...bjections when the videotape was offered. To so infer, it seems to me, is contrary to the purpose of the statutory scheme requiring all such objections to be made and ruled on pretrial outside the presence of the jury. In my view, sections
92.53 and
92.54 specify special procedures that differ considerably from the ordinary situation involving the offer of evidence and objection to its admissibility during trial....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 474090
...[1] Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel arises from his allegations that trial counsel failed to object to the fact that there had not been a hearing held or specific findings of fact made on the state's motion filed pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (requesting that the minor victims of Appellant's crime be allowed to testify by closed-circuit television), and that counsel failed to assert Appellant's speedy trial rights and to file a timely motion for discharge....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1687573
...He offered that he would exit the courtroom and observe her testimony through closed circuit television. He wanted the jury to observe her demeanor while testifying. The court denied the motion, agreeing with the state that the jury would still be able to observe her demeanor over the television. Section 92.54, Florida Statutes, authorizes the court to allow a child to testify outside of the courtroom by closed circuit television if the court determines that testifying in court would result in at least moderate emotional or mental harm to the *547 child....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 170976
...urt statements. We reject the appellant's other claims of error because we find them to be lacking in merit, not preserved for review or merely harmless. We affirm the appellant's conviction and sentences and certify a question to the supreme court. Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), permits a trial judge to order that the testimony of a child victim or witness to a sexual offense be taken outside of the courtroom and shown to the jury by means of closed circuit television....
...as persuaded the judge that "there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court or that such victim or witness is unavailable as defined in section
90.804(1)." §
92.54(1), Fla. Stat. Section
92.54(5) requires the judge to detail the *35 reasons for his ruling with these words: "The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section." Pursuant to section
92.54, the prosecutor sought to present the trial testimony of the alleged child victim via closed circuit television....
...attached to it a transcript of the testimony given by the mother and DeMaria at the hearing. The trial judge's recitation of the statutory standard and explanation that his ruling was based upon the testimony at the hearing might not have satisfied section 92.54(5)'s requirement of specific findings as to the basis for his ruling....
...2d DCA 1988), the state had filed a motion under section
92.53, Florida Statutes, to videotape the testimony of two children outside the presence of the defendant and use the videotape at trial in lieu of the children's live testimony. Section
92.53 sanctions such a procedure, but, as in section
92.54(5) at issue here, the trial court must "make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling." Section
92.53(7), Fla....
...1990), the supreme court approved this language from Jaggers and reversed an attempt by this court in Leggett v. State,
548 So.2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), to limit Jaggers to cases in which the record reveals inadequate evidentiary support for the judge's ruling. Section
92.54, like its companion, section
92.53, impacts a defendant's right to a "face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact," a right which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause....
...the use of a special procedure that permits the child to testify at trial in the absence of a face-to-face confrontation with the defendant. Maryland v. Craig , at 855-56,
110 S.Ct. at 3169,
111 L.Ed.2d at 685. The case-specific findings required by section
92.54(5) serve the same purpose as those required by section
92.53(7); they render the statute constitutional and the consequent denial of the defendant's right to face-to-face confrontation permissible....
...Hopkins. The state acknowledges that this objection was "couched in terms of a confrontation rights argument," but the state contends that it was not sufficient to preserve the issue of whether the trial court's findings satisfied the requirements of section 92.54(5)....
...e the issue for review in this court. In so holding, we rely upon Sanders v. State,
568 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), wherein the court held that it was not required to decide whether the trial judge's findings contained the specificity required by section
92.54(5), because the findings were not contemporaneously challenged for competency or sufficiency....
...It failed to advise the court and opposing counsel of the specific way in which the relevant statute had not been satisfied. As in Jackson, had the appellant's counsel made a specific objection, it could have been disposed of quite simply by the trial court making additional findings sufficient to clearly satisfy section 92.54(5)....
...purposes of appellate review. Of course, no objection is required when a trial court has committed fundamental error. We do not conclude that the error asserted here was fundamental, although we recognize the significance of a judge's findings under section 92.54(5) to the constitutionality of the statutory scheme....
...See Leggett,
565 So.2d at 318; and Gaither v. State,
581 So.2d 922, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (suggesting that a trial court's failure to make the case-specific findings of fact required by section
92.53(7) may be fundamental error). We also recognize that section
92.54 authorizes a procedure which impacts an accused's constitutional right to face-to-face confrontation with trial witnesses; a right so fundamental that four members of the United States Supreme Court would recently have held it subject to no exception....
...at 3171-76,
111 L.Ed.2d at 688-94 (Scalia, J., dissenting in an opinion joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall and Stevens). We therefore certify the following question to the supreme court as a question of great public importance: Does a trial court commit fundamental error by failing to make the findings required by section
92.54(5), Florida Statutes, prior to allowing a child witness to testify by means of closed circuit television? The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in allowing various witnesses to testify as to the out-of-court statements of the alleged child victim....
...As to those points, I agree, for the reasons discussed in the majority opinion, that the trial court *38 failed to make the necessary findings of fact required by section
90.803(23) to support the admissibility of the child witness's hearsay statements and the necessary findings required by section
92.54 to support the court's decision to allow the child witness to testify by closed circuit video....
...I do not agree that the objecting party, in this case defense counsel, in order to preserve the objection for appellate review, must specify each deficiency in the trial court's findings of fact after they are stated on the record by the court as required by sections
90.803(23) and
92.54....
...State,
456 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), involves different considerations than does compliance with the statutory requirements to set forth on the record findings of fact sufficient to admit otherwise inadmissible testimony under sections
90.803(23) and
92.54....
...The ground of the objection to an expert's qualifications, as well as the professional competency of the evidence being offered, of necessity must be specified at the time the expert testimony is offered. The statutory requirement in sections
90.803(23) and
92.54 that the basis of the court's ruling be set forth on the record serves an entirely different purpose, as previously discussed....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4146669
...citizens to the United States for perjury; and Andrea's unavailability to testify in the United States is due to the defendant's failure to sign the necessary documentation for Andrea to travel to the United States. In addition, the State, citing to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2007), argued that the defendant's motion must be denied because he cannot establish that there is a "substantial likelihood" that Andrea "will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm due to the presence of...
...ia satellite from Ecuador. The State seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari and quashal of the trial court's order. II. Legal Analysis The trial court's order allowing the defendant's minor children to testify via satellite from Ecuador cites to section 92.54, which provides in part as follows: (1) Upon motion and hearing in camera and upon a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that the child ......
...who is a victim or witness be taken outside of the courtroom and shown by means of closed circuit television. .... (5) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section. In the instant case, section 92.54 is inapplicable because the defendant's motion does not allege that the "harm" the children would suffer would be as a result of testifying in the presence of the defendant. Rather, the defendant contends that the children would suffer "harm" if returned to the victim upon entering the United States, as required by the family court custody order. Therefore, section 92.54 does not apply....
...ngdoing and/or inaction, the trial court erred in determining that the *1170 defendant's minor children were "unavailable," and in granting the defendant's motion to allow the children to testify via satellite transmission. Although we conclude that section 92.54 does not apply in the instant case because the defendant does not allege that his minor children will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if they are required to testify in open court due to the defendant's presence, and t...
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 462764
...ering, are affirmed, in that the evidence was admissible or the alleged error was not preserved for appellate review. In reversing the trial court's order permitting the child victim to testify by closed-circuit television, which is authorized under Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), we initially agree with the state that because the appellant did not object to the trial court's failure to make the specific findings required by section 92.54(5), he waived this error for purposes of appeal....
...1st DCA 1992), review granted,
618 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 1993). As in Hopkins, however, we certify the following question to the supreme court as a question of great public importance: DOES A TRIAL COURT COMMIT FUNDAMENTAL ERROR BY FAILING TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION
92.54(5), FLORIDA STATUTES, PRIOR TO ALLOWING A CHILD WITNESS TO TESTIFY BY MEANS OF CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION? Our conclusion in this regard, however, does not apply to the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence undergirding those findings....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5901, 1990 WL 125522
...You come in the courtroom in the chambers, and it will be broadcast out here. The judge, counsel and the witness went into chambers and the witness's testimony was broadcast over a speaker into the courtroom where appellant was required to remain. *258 There was no effort in this case to comply with the requirements of Section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes (1987), in order to justify the denial of appellant's right of confrontation....
...[1] There was no finding of "a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court." See Fricke v. State,
561 So.2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1990). In addition, the court permitted the use of a speaker only, not closed circuit television as required by Section
92.54(1), Florida Statutes, (1987). Further, the judge failed to insure that he and the persons in the room where the child was testifying, and the defendant could communicate by any appropriate electronic method as required by Section
92.54(4), Florida Statutes, (1987)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1335251
...The testimony established without controversy or contradiction that should E.H. be required to testify in the presence of her mother in open court, she would suffer tremendous emotional harm. The trial court denied the motion, finding that E.H. does not fall within the parameters of section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes (2000)....
...to testify in open court ... the trial court may order that the testimony of a child under the age of 16 or person with mental retardation who is a victim or witness be taken outside of the courtroom and shown by means of closed circuit television. Section 92.54(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). The trial court found that the evidence presented satisfied the "at least moderate emotional or mental harm" element of section 92.54. However, because E.H. was seventeen and was not mentally retarded, the court ruled that she was not entitled to *302 the protection of section 92.54 and would have to testify in person before her mother....
...The court found itself "legally precluded" from granting the relief requested, and with "no choice" but to deny the requested relief. The trial court's order denying the relief and its order on rehearing/clarification are well-reasoned and thorough, but were entered under a misapprehension of the law. Section 92.54 does not provide the sole means by which a trial court may exercise its inherent authority and its discretion to protect a child witness....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 709, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1869, 1992 WL 319938
broad because it goes beyond the language of section
92.54, Florida Statutes (1991), which allows a child
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 95628
...2d DCA 1989) (the omission of the findings required to introduce hearsay testimony under section
90.803(23)(c), Florida Statutes (1987) (is not fundamental error, at least in a case in which the child testified at trial)) with Sanders v. State,
568 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ((alleged violation of section
92.54(5), Florida Statutes (1989), is not fundamental error))....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10686, 2010 WL 2866989
...3219,
106 L.Ed.2d 569 (Fla.1989); see also §
92.53, Fla. Stat. (2009). Likewise, Florida has provided by statute that a child or a person with "mental retardation" who may suffer harm by testifying in open court may testify by closed circuit television. See §
92.54, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1995 WL 27510
...es involving incompetency or insanity; (3) rule 8.100(c) (general provisions for hearings), to conform to section
960.001(1)(d)3, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992); (4) rule 8.104 (testimony by closed-circuit television), to conform to 1993 revisions to section
92.54, Florida Statutes; (5) rule 8.120 (post-disposition hearing), to conform to section
960.001(1)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 86349
...[5] See, for example, the following sections from Florida Statutes: Section
914.16 Child abuse and sexual abuse victims under age 16; limits on interviews. Section
92.53 Sexual abuse or child abuse case; videotaping of testimony of victim or witness under age 16. Section
92.54 Use of closed circuit television in proceedings involving sexual offenses against victims under the age of 16....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 959
...case. Additionally, it was error for the court not to make a specific finding, in the record, that there was a substantial likelihood that K.G. would "suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in court," as required by Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
closed-circuit television system pursuant to section
92.54, Florida Statutes. The State began by explaining
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
in part, a confrontation clause issue under section
92.54, Florida Statutes, which provides that a trial
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
abusing his minor stepdaughter. Pursuant to section
92.54, Florida Statutes (2022), Appellee, the State
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 WL 125522
this case to comply with the requirements of Section 92.-54(1), Florida Statutes (1987), in order to justify
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 311, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 913, 1994 WL 245657
error in failure to make findings required by section
92.54 before allowing child witness to testify by
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
court to perform some judicial act.” 22 C.F.R. §
92.54.
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
involving minor victims or witnesses. Although section
92.54, Florida Statutes, authorizes remote testimony
