Supreme Court of Florida

Upon certification of a conflict on the issue of whether a discovery deposition can satisfy the Crawford requirement of a prior opportunity for cross-examination of a witness, a court of appeal's decision is approved in part and quashed in part where: 1) a child victim's statements at issue were testimonial for Crawford purposes; 2) a trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding the child unavailable due to the substantial likelihood of harm; 3) defense counsel's discovery depositions of the child did not afford defendant an opportunity for cross-examination as required by Crawford; 4) because the child's hearsay statement was testimonial and defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, the admission of the statement violated his right of confrontation; and 5) the error was not harmless as to a conviction for capital sexual battery, but was harmless as to a lewd and lascivious molestation conviction.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/13/2008
• Published 03/13/2008

Judges

• QUINCE, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of Florida

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, Celia Terenzio and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Petitioner.


• For Appellees:
  
• Valentin Rodriguez, Jr. of the Law Offices of Valentin Rodriguez, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.