P.J.S., A Juvenile, Appellant, v. STATE (2022)

P.J.S., the respondent below, appeals findings of delinquency rendered after the trial court conducted a hybrid adjudicatory hearing.¹ During the hearing, the trial judge appeared remotely via the Zoom videoconferencing platform, while the witnesses, appellant, and attorneys were physically present in the courtroom. One prosecutorial witness testified while masked. Relying upon the rationale advanced in our recent decisions in M.D. v. State, 345 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), J.T.B. v. State, 345 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), and K.M. v. State, ––– So.3d ––––, 2022 WL 2821506, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1557 (Fla. 3d DCA July 20, 2022), we find that the due process considerations inherent in delinquency proceedings require case-specific findings of necessity in such circumstances.² Because the record is devoid of any particularized findings, we are constrained to reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   These cases present identical issues and were consolidated for all purposes.

2.   The Florida Supreme Court has recently promulgated new amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. Underscoring the importance of considering the circumstances of each case, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.100(e)(1) now provides that “[e]videntiary proceedings must be conducted in person unless the parties agree that a proceeding should be conducted remotely or conducted in a hybrid format, or the court so orders upon good cause shown.”

MILLER, J.