M.C., A CHILD, 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.
A juvenile appellant was adjudicated delinquent for petit theft in a hearing conducted in her absence, despite her attorney's objection and request that she be taken into custody. The court reversed, holding that Florida law does not permit adjudicatory hearings to proceed without the juvenile present unless specific statutory exceptions apply, and the juvenile has a constitutional right to confrontation and cross-examination.
The court erred in conducting the adjudicatory hearing in the appellant's absence. A juvenile has a constitutional right to confrontation and cross-examination at adjudicatory hearings, and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.220 permits hearings to proceed without the juvenile only in two limited circumstances: when the court finds the child's presence is not in the child's best interest due to mental or physical condition, or when the child voluntarily absents himself after the hearing has begun. Neither exception applied here.
[1] A juvenile's adjudicatory hearing cannot proceed in the juvenile's absence unless the juvenile's presence is excused due to mental or physical condition, or the juvenile…
[2] Conducting a juvenile adjudicatory hearing in the juvenile's absence, without meeting the exceptions outlined in the rules, deprives the juvenile of the right to confront…
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“A juvenile is entitled to notice of the charges against him, the right to legal counsel, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confrontation and cross-examination.”
Establishes the fundamental constitutional rights of juveniles in delinquency proceedings based on In Re Gault
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.C., a juvenile, was charged with petit theft. She failed to appear for her scheduled adjudicatory hearing. Despite her attorney's objection and requ…
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 Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, a juvenile, appeals from a delinquency order entered after an adjudicatory hearing on a petition charging her with petit theft. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the court erred by holding an adjudicatory hearing without the appellant being present and, accordingly, reverse.
After the appellant had been charged with petit theft, she failed to appear for her scheduled adjudicatory hearing on the charge. Even though the appellant’s attorney requested the court to have the appel lant taken into custody and objected to the court’s conducting the hearing in her absence, the court proceeded with the hearing and found the appellant guilty of the charge. At a subsequent disposition hearing, the court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the appellant on community control. This timely appeal followed.
Although the appellant raises several points on appeal, we find merit only in her contention that the court erred in conducting an adjudicatory hearing in her absence.
A juvenile is entitled to notice of the charges against him, the right to legal counsel, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confrontation and cross-examination. In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428,18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). See generally Ch. 39, Fla.Stat. (1985), and Fla. RJuv.P. In this case, we are concerned with the appellant’s right to confrontation and cross-examination.
Although Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.220 sets forth two instances when a hearing may proceed without the accused juvenile being in attendance, neither instance is applicable to this case, First, subsection (a) of the rule provides that a juvenile’s presence at a hearing may be excused if the court finds that the child’s mental or physical condition is such that a court appearance is not in the child’s best interest. The court made no such finding in this case. Additionally, subsection (b) of the rule provides:
If the child is present at the beginning of a hearing and shall thereafter during the progress of the hearing voluntarily absent himself from the presence of the court without leave of the court, or is removed from the presence of the court because of disruptive conduct during the hearing, the hearing shall not thereby be postponed or delayed, but shall proceed in all respects as if the child were present in court at all times.
Because the appellant was not present at the beginning of the hearing, she naturally had no opportunity to voluntarily absent herself or to engage in disruptive conduct.
Since the appellant’s presence at her adjudicatory hearing was not excused because of her physical or mental condition and she did not voluntarily absent herself from the hearing after it began, we find that the court deprived the appellant of her right to confrontation and cross-examination by conducting the adjudicatory hearing in her absence. We, accordingly, reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.D.M. v. State, 626 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…venile, was not present at the adjudicatory hearing at which he was adjudicated delinquent for carrying a concealed firearm. The state correctly concedes error, as juveniles have the right to be present at their adjudicatory hearings. M.C. v. State, 516 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.100(a). Although defense [*1089] counsel waived appellant’s presence at the hearing, such waiver was ineffective absent some ratification of the waiver on the part of the accused. See Savino v. State, 555 So. 2d 12…
Authorities Cited
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967)