Z.P., 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.
Z.P., a nine-year-old charged with grand theft, appeals his delinquency adjudication based on the trial court's failure to properly determine the competency of the state's sole eyewitness, also a nine-year-old child. The court reverses and remands because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate competency inquiry or make required findings regarding the child witness's capacity and moral obligation to tell the truth.
The trial court erred by failing to make an adequate competency inquiry and required findings regarding the child witness's mental capacity and moral sense of duty to tell the truth. When a child's competency is at issue, the court must determine whether the child can observe, recollect, and narrate facts and has a moral sense of the duty to tell the truth. The delinquency finding must be reversed and remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing because the prosecution's case rested solely on this uncertified child witness.
[1] A trial court has a duty to determine whether a child witness possesses sufficient mental capacity and a sense of moral obligation to be competent.
[2] When a child's competency as a witness is challenged, the court must inquire into the child's ability to observe, recollect, and narrate facts, as well as their moral sen…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“It is the trial court's duty to determine whether a child witness "has sufficient mental capacity and sense of moral obligation to be competent as a witness."”
Establishes the foundational legal standard that trial courts must apply when evaluating child witness competency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZ.P. was charged with grand theft. The state's only eyewitness was a nine-year-old child in third grade. When the prosecutor began examining this witn…
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 Child Witness Competency cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
Z.P. appeals the trial court’s finding that he was delinquent in committing the offense of grand theft. We reverse for the failure of the trial court to determine the competency of a nine-year-old witness when the witness’s competency was at issue before the trial court.1
The state’s eyewitness to the crime was a nine-year-old child. At the beginning of his testimony, the prosecutor elicited his age and that he attended third grade at a certain school. When the prosecutor began to inquire about the facts of this case, defense counsel objected, arguing that it had not been established that the child knew the difference between the truth and a lie. The trial court stated that it is presumed that a nine-year-old child knows the difference between right and wrong. The trial court, therefore, made no inquiry or findings relating to the child’s competency. During redirect examination the prosecutor asked the child if he knew what it meant to tell the truth and whether he had said anything that day which had not been the truth.
It is the trial court’s duty to determine whether a child witness “has sufficient mental capacity and sense of moral obligation to be competent as a witness.” Lloyd v. State, 524 So. 2d 396, 400 (Fla.1988). When a child’s competency is at issue, the court must determine whether the child is capable of observing, recollecting, and narrating facts in addition to whether the child has a moral sense of the duty to tell the truth. Griffin v. State, 526 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
Defense counsel placed the child’s competency at issue, at least to the extent of whether the child had a moral sense of the duty to tell the truth. The prosecutor’s questions of whether the child knew what it was to tell the truth and whether the child had testified truthfully were clearly inadequate. In Wade v. State, 586 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the First District held that questioning which showed that the child knew the difference between the truth and a lie did not necessarily demonstrate that the child had a moral obligation to tell the truth. See also Griffin, 526 So. 2d at 755.
Even if the competency inquiry were adequate, we still would reverse the court’s finding of delinquency because the court never ruled on the child’s competency, believing that it was unnecessary. This court recently held that a trial court is required to make findings relating to a child’s competency. See Kertell v. State, 649 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citing Griffin and Wade). The party, however, must preserve this issue for appeal. Cf. Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1994) (defendant must object at trial to preserve for appeal the issue of defect in the court’s findings on whether the child in sex offense case can testify by closed-circuit television). We conclude that the appellant preserved this issue. Defense counsel challenged the child’s competency,2 and the trial court mistakenly believed that it was unnecessary to inquire into and to rule on the competency of the nine-year-old witness. When the court refused to inquire into the child’s competency, it would have been fruitless for defense counsel to object to the lack of findings.
The court’s inadequate inquiry and failure to make competency findings cannot be considered harmless in this case. This child was the prosecution’s only eyewitness. We, therefore, are compelled to reverse the delinquency finding and remand this case to the trial court for a new adjudicatory hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. . The appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm on that issue. The appellant also raised an error contained in the Order to Participate in the JASP Program. Our decision in this appeal makes that issue moot.
. The defense presented three child witnesses. The state, however, never raised the competency issue as it related to the defense witnesses.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barton v. State, 704 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…retion to determine whether a child is competent to testify as a witness, Griffin v. State, 526 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), but the decision is one that must be announced on the record and it must be supported by findings of fact. Z.P. v. State, 651 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In the present case Judge Moran questioned the witness but made no finding that she was competent. Judge Parsons accepted this without making any further inquiry or findings. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial…
-
Elvestre Toussaint v. State, 755 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…tate, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985). Indeed, the case law upon which appellant relies demonstrates that a determination of competency is not required unless it is at issue in the trial as a result of an objection by counsel. See, e.g., Z.P. v. State, 651 So. 2d 213, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Griffin v. State, 526 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA); Lloyd v. State, 524 So. 2d 396, 399-400 (Fla.l988)(child’s competency was placed in issue in all of these cases). Additionally, the record, on its face, reflects that the…
-
Simmons v. State, 683 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…that he believed himself to be under any legal or moral obligation to testify truthfully. “Defense counsel placed [Burney’s] competency at issue, at least to the extent of whether [he] had a moral sense of the duty to tell the truth.” Z.P. v. State, 651 So. 2d 213, 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Findings and Inquiry Inadequate “Every person is competent to be a witness, except as otherwise provided by statute.” § 90.601, Fla.Stat. (1995). But a “person is disqualified to testify as a witness when the court determi…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1994)
- Lloyd v. State, 524 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1988)
- Griffin v. State, 526 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Wade v. State, 586 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Kertell v. State, 649 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)