CARROLL v. STATE (2025)

Affirmed

Because the Confrontation Clause error in this case was harmless, affirmance is warranted.

Based on the still-binding precedent established by the Florida Supreme Court in Harrell v. State, 709 So. 2d 1364, 1369 (Fla. 1998), the distinguished trial judge in this case did not err in permitting the State of Florida's lone rebuttal witness to testify via Zoom. Considering the necessities of the case, including, inter alia, the inability of the rebuttal witness to be present in person and the limited nature of his testimony, the trial court's decision satisfies the criteria set forth in Harrell.¹ As a result, I concur in affirming the trial court.

That said, but for Harrell,² which extended Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), beyond the context of child victims of sexual abuse testifying via live closed-circuit television, I would conclude that testimony presented via Zoom, as in this case, fails to pass constitutional muster. The esteemed Florida trial judges presiding over criminal cases—whose dockets and trial calendars undoubtedly reflect the substantial and increasing workload of the judiciary in the third most populous state in our Republic—must with caution indulge any notion that remote testimony is a worthy substitute for in-person confrontation of an accused by the witnesses against him that is secured by both the Sixth Amendment ³ and the Florida Constitution.⁴

This remains true even in the mobile, post-pandemic society in which we find ourselves—where “remote” has become commonplace. Yet, nothing is “common” about the work of Florida courts. Foundational constitutional safeguards, that secure to each of us the liberty granted by our Creator, may not be sacrificed on the altar of convenience. For that which may be efficient for counsel may well fail to be constitutionally effective for an accused. See Harrell, 709 So. 2d at 1372 (“Nevertheless, technological changes in the courtroom cannot come at the expense of the basic individual rights and freedoms secured by our constitutions.”).

FOOTNOTES

1.   Here, Harrell requires that the trial court's decision to permit presentation of testimony via Zoom “must (1) be justified, on a case-specific finding, based on ․ necessities of the case and (2) must satisfy the other three elements of confrontation—oath, cross-examination, and observation of the witness's demeanor.” See Harrell, 709 So. 2d at 1369.

2.   Harrell’s continued viability, under both the United States and Florida constitutions, seems dubious. See Lopez v. State, 397 So. 3d 1035, 1038–42 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (Artau, J., concurring specially).

3.   See Amend. VI, U.S. Const. (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ․ to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”).

4.   See Art. I, § 16(a), Fla. Const. (“In all criminal prosecutions the accused ․ shall have the right ․ to confront at trial adverse witnesses ․”).

Per Curiam.

Edwards, C.J., concurs. Makar, J., concurs, with opinion. Soud, J., concurs, with opinion.