A.C.S., 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.
The court held that a discovery deposition cannot be used as substantive evidence in a criminal trial.
A juvenile defendant was adjudicated delinquent based in part on the admission of a discovery deposition of the victim.…
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 Petit Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The juvenile defendant appeals an adjudication of delinquency on charges of aggravated battery, battery and petit theft. We reverse.
The trial court erred in admitting into evidence, for substantive purposes, the discovery deposition of the alleged victim. Depositions taken for purposes of discovery may not be used as substantive evidence in a criminal trial. State v. James, 402 So. 2d 1169 (Fla.1981). The state concedes the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, like the Rules of Criminal Procedure, provide that a deposition taken for discovery purposes may be used only “for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness.” Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.070(d)(3). Cf Rule 8.070(e).
Because the trial court expressly relied on the deposition in determining delinquency, we cannot agree with the state’s contention that the error in admitting the deposition was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the evidence is otherwise insufficient to support the adjudication, we reverse with directions to discharge the defendant.
REVERSED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fieselman v. State, 566 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1990)…PER CURIAM. We have for review two cases: Fieselman v. State, 537 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), based upon conflict with Baker v. State, 518 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); and Williams v. State, 540 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), based upon conflict with Fieselman and Mitchell v. State, 538 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We have jurisdiction over these consolidated cases. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.…
-
Fieselman v. State, 537 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…petitioned this court to issue a writ of certiorari to review the circuit court’s order. We deny the defendant’s petition. I. We consider first whether the decision of the circuit court is one properly reviewable by certiorari. In Baker v. State, 518 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), the Fifth District refused to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to review a circuit court’s reversal of a county court’s order dismissing a criminal information. Its reasoning was succinct: a circuit court's order on appeal r…1 / 2
-
Mitchell v. State, 538 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…court, charged with violating section 316.193(1), Florida Statutes (1987), the criminal traffic offense of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. [*107] The first issue is whether this court has jurisdiction. In Baker v. State, 518 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), the Fifth District, citing to rule 9.140(b) and (c), Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987), Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1983), and State v. Soto, 444 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), refused to accept…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. James, 402 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1981)