T.T.W., A JUVENILE,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

Fla. 3d DCA | 2022-09-30
No. 2021-1045
Hendon, J.
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1409 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2022) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

A juvenile defendant challenged his trial court's allowing a police officer to testify via Zoom without a case-specific finding of necessity, arguing this violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court reversed and remanded, requiring the trial court to make explicit case-specific findings of necessity before permitting remote testimony.

Holding

Yes, the trial court violated the juvenile's right to confrontation by allowing remote testimony without case-specific findings of necessity. The court reversed and remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing, though the trial court may conduct the hearing via Zoom on remand if it first holds a hearing and makes case-specific findings of necessity.

Headnotes

[1] A juvenile's constitutional right to confrontation is violated when a prosecution witness is permitted to testify remotely via Zoom without a case-specific finding of nec…

[2] A trial court must make a case-specific finding of necessity before limiting a juvenile's confrontation rights by allowing remote testimony.

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
Key Quotes

“the failure to render case-specific findings of necessity justifying conducting the juvenile adjudicatory hearings remotely resulted in a denial of due process”

Establishes the core holding that case-specific necessity findings are required before conducting remote proceedings

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

T.T.W. was charged in a juvenile delinquency proceeding. At his adjudicatory hearing, defense counsel, the trial court, and one prosecution witness ap…

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.

Topics
Constitutional Right To Confrontation Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause) Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Right To Confrontation cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

HENDON, J.

T.T.W. argues that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confrontation by permitting, over objection, a prosecution witness—a police officer—to testify at his juvenile delinquency hearing via Zoom without any case-specific finding of necessity. Based on this Court’s recent decision in J.T.B. v. State, Nos. 3D21-577, 3D21-537, 3D21-2038, & 3D21-1549, 2022 WL 2334940 (Fla. 3d DCA June 29, 2022), addressing this issue under sufficiently similar circumstances1, we agree. Therefore, we reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing. J.T.B., 2022 WL 2334940 at *5 (“Accordingly, we conclude that, under these circumstances, the failure to render case-specific findings of necessity justifying conducting the juvenile adjudicatory hearings remotely resulted in a denial of due process.”). On remand, as it appears that we are now in the later stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial court may conduct the adjudicatory hearing via Zoom if it first holds a hearing on T.T.W.’s objection and “makes a case-specific finding

of necessity before limiting his confrontation rights.” M.D. v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1409, *5 (Fla. 3d DCA June 29, 2022) (footnote omitted).

Reversed and remanded.

Footnotes
1 This Court’s decision in J.T.B. involved four separate cases. In three of the cases, the entire proceeding was conducted remotely. However, in one of the cases, D.S. v. State (Case No. 3D21-537), the prosecutor and lead witness were permitted to appear in court, but the juvenile and his sole witness, his mother, appeared via the Zoom platform on a shared cellphone. J.T.B., 2022 WL 2334940 at *5. In the instant case, defense counsel, the trial court, and one of the two State witnesses appeared in person for the trial, and the other prosecution witness—a police officer—testified via Zoom on his cellphone, and T.T.W. appeared remotely.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • K.M. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
    …ts, Fla. Admin. Order AOSC21-17, Amend. 1 (July 29, 2021). 3 In light of our recent decisions in M.D. v. State, No. 3D21-1147, 2022 WL 2334996 (Fla. 3d DCA June 29, 2022) and J.T.B. v. State, Nos. 3D21- 577, 3D21-537, 3D21-2038, & 3D21-1549, 2022 WL 2334940 (Fla. 3d DCA June 29, 2022), which are indistinguishable in all material respects from the instant case, we reverse the adjudicatory order and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing and for further proceedings consistent with M.D. and J.T.B. R…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw