M. M.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
M.M., a juvenile, appeals his adjudication for carrying a concealed firearm, challenging both the denial of his motion to suppress and the trial court's decision to conduct the adjudicatory hearing via Zoom. The court affirmed the suppression ruling but reversed and remanded regarding the Zoom hearing, requiring the trial court to conduct a hearing on M.M.'s objection and make a case-specific finding of necessity before proceeding via Zoom.
The court found no merit in the suppression argument and affirmed that determination. However, the court reversed the Zoom hearing ruling, holding that the trial court must conduct a hearing on the juvenile's objection to Zoom proceedings and make a case-specific finding of necessity to limit confrontation rights before proceeding via Zoom.
[1] A trial court must conduct a hearing on a juvenile's objection to holding a hearing via Zoom and make a case-specific finding of necessity to limit confrontation rights.
[2] A juvenile's objection to holding an adjudicatory hearing via Zoom requires a case-specific finding of necessity by the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 trial court must conduct a hearing on a juvenile's objection to holding a hearing over Zoom and make a case-specific finding of necessity to limit confrontation rights”
Establishes the required procedure for Zoom proceedings in juvenile adjudications
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.M. was adjudicated delinquent for carrying a concealed firearm. The trial court denied his motion to suppress and conducted the adjudicatory hearing…
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 Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. M.M. appeals an order that adjudicated him delinquent for carrying a concealed firearm. He argues that the court should have granted his motion to suppress and that the court erred by holding
the adjudicatory hearing over Zoom, a video teleconferencing software program.
We find no merit in M.M.'s argument concerning the motion to suppress.
However, with respect to the Zoom hearing issue, the underlying facts and legal ruling on review in this case are indistinguishable from those featured in T.H. v. State, 47 Fla.
L. Weekly D681a (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 18, 2022). In T.H., we concluded that a trial court must conduct a hearing on a juvenile's objection to holding a hearing over Zoom and make a case-specific finding of necessity to limit confrontation rights. Id. at D683. The T.H. panel expressly did not determine whether conducting an adjudicatory hearing via Zoom is unconstitutional, and we do not reach that issue here. On remand, if the trial court holds a hearing on M.M.'s objection and makes a case-specific finding of necessity, the adjudicatory hearing may be held via Zoom. See id.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur. LABRIT, J., Concurs specially.
LABRIT, J., Specially concurring. I concur to reverse and remand this case because we are bound by the decision in T.H. v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D681a (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 18, 2022). See In re Rule 9.331, Determination of Causes by a Dist. Ct. of Appeal En Banc, Fla. R. App. P., 416 So. 2d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 1982). If we were writing on a clean slate, I would vote to affirm for the reasons stated in the order on review as well as for the reasons in my colleague's dissenting opinion in T.H. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.