KATHY RUTH OVIATT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Kathy Ruth Oviatt was convicted of attempted first-degree murder of her eight-year-old daughter. On appeal, she challenged a pretrial order in limine that prohibited defense counsel from telling the child witness before trial that her mother might go to jail as a result of her testimony, arguing it violated her Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
The pretrial order in limine was proper and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The order only prevented pre-trial intimidation of a vulnerable minor witness and did not prevent cross-examination at trial.
[1] A pretrial order in limine precluding defense counsel from informing a child witness that her mother might go to jail as a result of her testimony does not violate the Si…
[2] A trial court has considerable discretion in controlling the scope of examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It simply is not reasonable to assume that an impressionable child will become more, rather than less, truthful because of a calculated suggestion by an adversarial lawyer that her testimony will seriously hurt her own mother.”
The court's reasoning for why the in limine order was proper and did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKathy Ruth Oviatt was charged with attempted first-degree murder with a firearm of her eight-year-old daughter, Pamela. Pamela was the key state witne…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Witness Intimidation cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellant, Kathy Ruth Oviatt, was convicted of the attempted first-degree murder with a firearm of her eight-year-old daughter, Pamela, who was the key state witness at trial. Although various points are raised on appeal, we feel that only one merits discussion: the propriety of a pretrial order in limine precluding defense counsel from making a statement to Pamela prior to trial to the effect that her mother might go to jail as the result of her testimony-
In support of its motion in limine, the state argued that such information was irrelevant and could only serve to prejudice the eight-year-old child or to dissuade her' from testifying altogether. The defendant contends that the order was an unreasonable restraint on her Sixth Amendment confrontation right. In her brief, the ap pellant argues, “Liberal cross-examination should have been permitted as a means of testing the witness’ believability and lack of bias.”
The argument of the defense is unconvincing. It simply is not reasonable to assume that an impressionable child will become more, rather than less, truthful because of a calculated suggestion by an adversarial lawyer that her testimony will seriously hurt her own mother. Cf., State v. Fetherolf, 388 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Moreover, the order in no way prevented any cross-examination at trial. The order reads:
The state’s motion in limine is granted and defense counsel shall make no statement prior to trial to the victim, Pamela Oviatt, to the effect that defendant, her mother, might go to jail as the result of the victim’s testimony.
Obviously, the order only sought to prevent pre-trial intimidation of a vulnerable minor witness. As noted in numerous Florida cases, the trial judge has considerable discretion in his control of the scope of examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Jones v. State, 440 So. 2d 570 (Fla.1983); Maggard v. State, 399 So. 2d 973 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1059, 102 S.Ct. 610, 70 L.Ed.2d 598 (1981); Coxwell v. State, 361 So. 2d 148 (Fla.1978). In this case, we find no abuse of that broad discretion.
AFFIRMED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Maggard v. State, 399 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1981)
- Coxwell v. State, 361 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1978)
- Jones v. State, 440 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1983)
- Valdes v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 454 U.S. 1059 (U.S. 1981)
- Christensen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 454 U.S. 1059 (U.S. 1981)
- State v. Fetherolf, 388 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)