JUSTINIANO RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction of sexual battery and lewd assault on minor child, holding that prior consistent statements of child victim are admissible under statutory hearsay exception and that trial court properly excluded speculative defense evidence lacking evidentiary foundation.
Prior consistent statements of a child victim that qualify under Florida Statutes section 90.803(23) are admissible even when the child testifies fully at trial, and a trial court may properly exclude defense arguments and hypothetical questions lacking evidentiary support.
[1] Prior consistent statements of a child victim that qualify under Florida Statutes section 90.803(23) are admissible in evidence even when the child is able to testify ful…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA defendant was convicted of sixteen counts of sexual battery and two counts of lewd and lascivious assault on his minor son after a jury deliberated …
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 Bolstering Credibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After only sixteen minutes of deliberation, a jury found the defendant guilty of sixteen counts of sexual battery and two counts of lewd and lascivious assault on his minor son.
Two issues are presented in this appeal: (1) the testimony of the child’s prior consistent statements served only to impermissi-bly bolster the victim’s credibility; and (2) the defense was unfairly limited in its presentation of defense evidence, in closing argument, and in presenting an alternative explanation for the victim’s rectal abnormalities through cross-examination of a State expert witness.
Having examined the record, including the overwhelming evidence, we are not persuaded that reversal is required. First, hearsay testimony of a child victim’s prior consistent statement made to another person, which qualifies under the statutory exception in section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1991), is admissible in evidence even when the child is able to testify fully at trial. Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1992).
Second, the trial judge was correct in prohibiting the defense from arguing that the child had been involved in homosexual activity at his elementary school, or inquiring of the expert on that subject hypothetically, when there was no evidence to support the theory. North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Johnson, 538 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA1988), rev. denied, 551 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1989); Nat Harrison Assocs. v. Byrd, 256 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA1971).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turner v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)
- NAT Harrison Assocs., Inc. v. Byrd, 256 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Rolanda Johnson, 538 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)